Weissmanshop.com

The timeline behind weissmanshop.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 Weissman’s Theatrical Supplies, Inc. v. Joyneray Gregory Case No. D2026-0341 1. The Parties Complainant is Weissman’s Theatrical Supplies, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Thompson Coburn LLP, United States. Respondent is Joyneray Gregory, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <weissmanshop.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2026. On January 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 30, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 4, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 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. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 2, 2026. The Center appointed Jeffrey D. Steinhardt as 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a United States-based dancewear and costume design company that has conducted retail and wholesale sales for around 60 years. Complainant owns trademark rights in the mark WEISSMAN, United States Trademark Registration No. 4706573, registered in International Class 25 on March 24, 2015. The disputed domain name was registered on July 16, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s WEISSMAN marks, presenting products, styles and images very similar to those appearing on Complainant’s authentic website at “www.weissmans.com”. 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. Complainant avers that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that prominently displays Complainant’s WEISSMAN trademark and branded dancewear, holding itself out as Complainant. Providing screen captures in annexes to the Complaint, Complainant continues that “Respondent’s Website lists various costumes and clothing for purchase, and uses the same images as products on the official Weissman website located at www.weissmans.com [...] Clicking on these items and adding them to a shopper’s cart allows a shopper to enter their personal information as well as credit card information to seemingly complete a purchase.” Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s website uses Complainant’s intellectual property (including the WEISSMAN logo and images from its catalogs), thereby impersonating Complainant. Complainant also avers that the physical address listed on Respondent’s website is fictitious. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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 (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark 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. Although the addition of other terms (here, “shop”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of that term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds that the first element of Policy paragraph 4(a) has been established. page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 that 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. Here, Complainant has provided credible evidence that Respondent’s website uses Complainant’s trademark and is impersonating Complainant’s genuine commercial website. Moreover, the Panel accepts Complainant’s unopposed allegations that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Respondent lacks authorization to use Complainant’s trademarks and other intellectual property. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, alleged sale of counterfeit goods or phishing/identity theft, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds that the second element of Policy paragraph 4(a) has also been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent uses Complainant’s trademark and is impersonating Complainant’s genuine commercial website, without authorization. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy (“attempt[ing] to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [...] [Respondent’s] web site [...] by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark [...]”). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may also be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed sale of counterfeit goods or phishing/identity theft, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 1 1 The Panel notes that Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest and bad faith are apparent: (1) whether the website is being used for a phishing/identity theft scheme or, alternatively, (2) whether Respondent is using the website to market products under the WEISSMAN page 4 Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint in these proceedings is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 <weissmanshop.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Jeffrey D. Steinhardt/ Jeffrey D. Steinhardt Sole Panelist Date: March 17, 2026 mark without authorization of Complainant, to promote products under the WEISSMAN mark, thereby attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

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