Indianaequifaxclaims.com

The timeline behind indianaequifaxclaims.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 Equifax Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc. Case No. D2026-0317 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc., Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <indianaequifaxclaims.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2026. On January 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 28, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0171887318) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 29, 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 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Dietrich Beier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 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 Complainant was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia (United States) in 1913, and its predecessor company dates back to 1899. The Complainant is a global data, analytics and technology company. The Complainant provides information solutions for businesses, governments and consumers, and the Complainant provides human resources business process automation and outsourcing services for employers. The Complainant has a large and diversified group of clients, including financial institutions, corporations, government agencies and individuals. The Complainant operates in North America, Asia Pacific, Europe and Latin America. As of December 31, 2024, Complainant employed approximately 14,700 employees in 22 countries. In 2024, Complainant’s operating revenue was USD 5,681.1 million; and its operating income was USD 1,042.1 million. The Complainant is proprietor of at least 221 trademark registrations in at least 56 jurisdictions around the world for marks that consist of or contain the word “Equifax,” which was first used in commerce and registered in 1975, inter alia the German trademark 2018558 EQUIFAX, registered on August 11, 1992, for classes 35, 36, 38, 42 and being in effect. The disputed domain name was registered on July 25, 2024. The Respondent was using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s own website at “www.equifax.com”. The Respondent also was using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a fake “Apple security” web page that falsely informs users, “Your iPhone connection was hacked and someone is tracking you!”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the trademark enjoys global reputation and that the disputed domain name incorporates entirely the Complainant’s EQUIFAX marks whereas the elements “indiana” and “claims” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Further, the Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to make use of the EQUIFAX mark. The Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it be inferred that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, inter alia since he redirected the disputed domain name incorporating the famous trademark of the client to the Complainant’s own website. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The addition of the descriptive and non-distinctive elements “Indiana” and “claims” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. This is in particular the case since the Complainant did not grant any permission or consent to the Respondent to use its trademarks in a domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name since there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Equifax” or the disputed domain name nor that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of related goods or services. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Due to the intensive use of the Complainant’s distinctive marks, being registered for many decades in many jurisdictions at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent must have been page 4 well aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant had not authorised the Respondent to make use of its mark. The Respondent’s failure to come forward with any explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name in a response, the use of a privacy service to conceal the Respondent’s identity and the redirecting of the disputed domain name to the website of the Complainant indicate that the Respondent targeted the Complainant. The overall circumstances of this case, inter alia: (i) the Respondent’s - at times- redirecting the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website as well as (ii) the - at times - redirecting to a website saying “Yo u r iPhone connection was hacked and someone is tracking you!” indicate that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its potential website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location. Past panels have previously found that the act of redirecting a domain name to the Complainant’s website constitutes evidence of use in bad faith insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant. The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to have been registered and used in bad faith in accordance with 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 <indianaequifaxclaims.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dietrich Beier/ Dietrich Beier Sole Panelist Date: March 16, 2026

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