Emailfebreze.com

The timeline behind emailfebreze.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Procter & Gamble Company v. Tony Mantana, AdvManage LLC Case No. D2026-0285 1. The Parties Complainant is The Procter & Gamble Company, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United States. Respondent is Tony Mantana, AdvManage LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <emailfebreze.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 29, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 30, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Scott R. Austin as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The following facts appear from the Complaint (as amended) and its attached Annexes, which have not been contested by Respondent, and provide evidence sufficient to support: Complainant is a leading global manufacturer and seller of a range of consumer products, including deodorizers which it has marketed and sold under the trademark FEBREZE (the “FEBREZE Marks”) since 1996. Complainant owns of over 20 U.S. trademark registrations comprising or containing the FEBREZE Mark, as well as others around the globe, including the following: U.S. Registration No. 2,107,914, FEBREZE, registered October 21, 1997, covering deodorizers for fabrics, upholstery and carpets in International Class 5; U.S. Registration No. 3,152,106, FEBREZE, registered October 3, 2006, covering laundry detergent/fabric softener in International Class 3; and U.S. Registration No. 3,573,766, FEBREZE, registered February 10, 2009, covering all purpose cleaning preparations and disposable wipes not impregnated with chemicals or compounds in International Class 3. Complainant has submitted copies of the registration certificates for each of three registrations noted above as well as others around the world in the Annexes attached to the Complaint. Complainant also shows it incorporates the FEBREZE Mark into its official domain name <febreze.com>, which resolves to Complainant’s official FEBREZE Mark website (“Official Website”) to promote and offer its products and render its services to its to its customers under the FEBREZE Mark. The WhoIs record shows the disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2025, and Complainant states that as of the date of the filing of its complaint, all attempts to access the domain name resulted in unauthorized redirection to Complainant’s Official Website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name: that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FEBREEZE Mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(e) of the Rules to prevent this Panel from determining the present dispute based upon the Complaint (as amended), notwithstanding the failure of any person to lodge a substantive formal Response in compliance with the Rules. Under paragraph 14 of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Where no substantive Response is filed, however, Complainant must still make out its case in all respects under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. To succeed, Complainant must demonstrate that the requirements for each of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. The Panel will address its findings on each of these elements in more detail below. The standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.2. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the holder of multiple valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the FEBREZE Mark, especially in the United States, where Respondent is purportedly located. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. With Complainant’s rights in the FEBREZE Mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FEBREZE Mark. Prior UDRP panels have held that the incorporation of the entirety of a trademark in a domain name is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.8 (“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”); see also United Talent Agency, LLC v. Lianxin Zhou, WIPO Case No. D2024-1160; and Carrefour SA v. yuri eros, יינות ביתן בע"מ , WIPO Case No. D2022-1277. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s FEBREZE Mark in its entirety and adds only the term “email” at the beginning and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” at the end. The addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. See also, Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Stanislav Severin, WIPO Case No. D2020-1546. This Panel finds confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s FEBREZE Mark, which remains fully recognizable as incorporated in its entirety into the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element of the Policy, a complainant is first required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant makes that showing, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant page 4 evidence of such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. See also, Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Based on the record, the Panel finds Complainant has established, prima facie, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Complainant asserts that it has never assigned, sold, or transferred any rights in any of its FEBREZE Marks to Respondent. Second, Complainant asserts it has not granted Respondent permission to use or register its FEBREZE Mark as a domain name or otherwise in any manner. Complainant also contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because Respondent, “Tony Mantana, AdvManage LLC”, clearly bears no resemblance to the term “febreze”, the FEBREZE Mark, or the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for purposes of the Policy. Complainant contends that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because it is used solely to redirect users to Complainant’s Official Website without Complainant’s authorization. Prior UDRP panels have held that such unauthorized redirection to a complainant’s official website “does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as it necessarily involves some degree of deception or intent to mislead, and does not constitute use in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services”. See, e.g., JJA v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot /Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2021-2124; Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625. The Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, so as to confer rights or legitimate interests in it in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and that the composition of the disputed domain name being confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark fosters an implied affiliation with Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. These facts establish Complainant’s prima facie showing. Respondent has not provided any basis on which that showing may be overcome. Complainant has successfully met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Hallmark Licensing, LLC v. EWebMall, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-2202. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that point to bad faith conduct on the part of a respondent. The panel may, however, consider the totality of the circumstances when analyzing bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and may make a finding of bad faith that is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy, paragraph 4(b). See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. First, Complainant contends, and this Panel has found in Section 6A above from the record submitted and its own independent investigation as permitted under the Policy, that the FEBREZE Mark is well known around the world. Based on the uncontested record, considering that the FEBREZE Mark is registered, recognized, and advertised around the world, and especially in the United States, where Respondent is purportedly located, as well as the fact that Complainant’s earliest trademark registration predates the disputed domain name by almost twenty nine years, and the disputed domain name incorporates the FEBREZE Mark in its entirety, the Panel finds Respondent has no credible argument that he is unaware of the FEBREZE Mark. See, e.g., Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0287; see also Accor S.A. v. Kristen Hoerl, WIPO Case No. D2007-1722. page 5 A consensus of prior UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Complainant contends Respondent undoubtedly had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its FEBREZE Marks prior to registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s own Official Website reinforces the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its FEBREZE Marks prior to registering and using the disputed domain name. Prior UDRP panels have found that the redirection from a disputed domain name to the complainant’s website indicated an awareness of the complainant and its mark. See, e.g., Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533. Prior UDRP panels have also found that where, as here, it would be implausible to believe that Respondent selected and was using the disputed domain name for any other purpose than to trade on Complainant’s trademark rights and reputation, it establishes a fact pattern that repeatedly has been held to constitute bad faith registration. See Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weathermen, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0211; see also Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946. The Panel finds, therefore, that Respondent had actual knowledge of the FEBREZE Mark and that Respondent has targeted Complainant’s FEBREZE Mark in registering the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Host master, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754. Having reviewed the record, which shows the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s preexisting Official Website, the Panel finds such use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under the circumstances of this proceeding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel finds Complainant’s arguments and evidence persuasive and has received no arguments or evidence from Respondent to the contrary. Considering all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and finds Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <emailfebreze.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Scott R. Austin/ Scott R. Austin Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.