Voltexheat.com

The timeline behind voltexheat.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 2K Innovations, Inc. v. Eddy To Case No. D2026-0347 1. The Parties The Complainant is 2K Innovations, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Marks Gray, P.A., United States. The Respondent is Eddy To, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <voltexheat.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 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 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 January 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2026. The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 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 The Complainant is a company based in the United States specialized since 2012 in the wholesale and online trade of a variety of heated apparel products, including heated cushions and pillows under the brand VOLT and heated footwear, jackets, vests, pants and gloves under the brand VOLT RESISTANCE. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for VOLT and VOLT RESISTANCE, as per trademark registration certificates submitted in Annex 3 to the Complaint: - United States trademark registration No. 4211556 for VOLT (word mark), filed on November 2, 2011, and registered on September 18, 2012, in international class 11; - United States trademark registration No. 4389123 for VOLT RESISTANCE (word mark), filed on May 3, 2012, and registered on August 20, 2013, in international class 25. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <voltheat.com>, registered on April 21, 2012, and used by the Complainant to promote its products such as heated seat cushions, pillows, vests, gloves, jackets, mid-layers, footwear, clothing, hunting gear, motorcycle gear, lap blankets, scarves, handwarmers, batteries and accessories for heated clothing under the trademarks VOLT and VOLT RESISTANCE. The disputed domain name <voltexheat.com> was registered on November 3, 2023, and is currently not pointed to an active website. However, according to the screenshot submitted as Annex 2 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved prior to the present proceeding to a website displaying a logo VOLTEX HEATED VEST and offering heated clothing for sale. Based on the correspondence submitted as Annex 4 to the Complaint, the Complainant was contacted on several occasions by customers who accidentally purchased heated products from the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name, thinking the same were associated with the Complainant in some way. 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark VOLT in which the Complainant has rights and to its domain name <voltheat.com>, used to promote and offer Complainant’s heated products for sale. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: i) the Complainant’s rights long predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name; ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and iii) the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a website where heated products are offered for sale in direct competition with the Complainant, causing customer confusion. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since: i) the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business; ii) the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website; and iii) the Complainant has owned and used the VOLT and VOLT RESISTANCE marks since 2012 in connection with the sale of heated products, whilst the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name since 2023. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 the 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. The 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. Indeed, the Complainant has provided evidence of a valid trademark registration for the word mark VOLT. The Complainant’s mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name with the mere addition of the two letters “ex” and the dictionary term “heat”. In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Moreover, Panels have found that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional terms may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. As to the generic Top Level Domain “.com”, it is a standard registration requirement and can be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, 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. page 4 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. 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. According to the evidence on record, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark or the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no element from which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights over the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent made use of, or preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non- commercial use without intention to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks. Indeed, even though the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, based on the evidence provided by the Complainant – which has not been contested by the Respondent -, the disputed domain name initially resolved to a website displaying a VOLTEX HEATED VEST logo and promoting the sale of heated clothing, in direct competition with the products offered by the Complainant on its website “www.voltheat.com”. Such use of the disputed domain name, together with its composition, suggests that the Respondent was indeed aware of the Complainant and its products and intended to attract users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion and association with the Complainant. Moreover, it appears that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name actually caused confusion with the Complainant since, according to the correspondence submitted at Annex 4 to the Complaint, the Complainant was contacted on numerous occasions by concerned customers who accidentally purchased heated products from the Respondent’s website, thinking the same were associated with the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy 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, in light of i) the prior registration and use of the trademarks VOLT and VOLT RESISTANCE by the Complainant in connection with its heated clothing and accessories; and ii) the promotion and sale of the Complainant’s products online via the website “www.voltheat.com”, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. page 5 Indeed, though the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name, to offer for sale heated products in direct competition with the Complainant, suggests that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant and its trademarks, and used it in order to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the products offered therein, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As mentioned above, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. On the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and the composition of the disputed domain name, and, considering the Respondent’s failure to submit a response, finds that in the circumstances of this case, there is no overall plausibility of good faith use to which the domain name may be put and thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy as well. 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 <voltexheat.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Luca Barbero/ Luca Barbero Sole Panelist Date: March 11, 2026

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