Firstoniste.com

The timeline behind firstoniste.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 Bellwether FOS Holdco, Inc. v. Info Admin, Firstoniste Case No. D2026-0443 1. The Parties Complainant is Bellwether FOS Holdco, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, United States. Respondent is Info Admin, Firstoniste, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <firstoniste.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 February 3, 2026. On February 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 4, 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 (Name redacted / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 6, 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 February 10, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 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 Complainant, Bellwether FOS Holdco, Inc., is the owner of a business platform of property restoration and reconstruction entities that go to the market under the mark, brand, and trade name First Onsite Property Restoration (“First Onsite”). The entities making up the First Onsite business platform provide full-service disaster recovery and property restoration services at over 100 offices to clients across North America. The First Onsite’s website is located at “www.firstonsite.com”. Complainant owns three United States trademark registrations for marks consisting in whole, or dominant in part, of the FIRSTONSITE mark. These are Registration No. 6,331,900 for FIRSTONSITE, which was issued on April 27, 2021; Registration No. 6,331,904 for FIRSTONSITE RESTORATION, which was issued on April 27, 2021; and Registration No. 6,969,576 for FIRST ONSITE PROPERTY RESTORATION, which was issued on January 31, 2023. The marks have been in continuous use since at least July 2012. The disputed domain name, <firstoniste.com>, was registered on December 1, 2025, and there is no record that Respondent has ever operated an active website using the disputed domain name. 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. Notably, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FIRSTONSITE marks. Complainant points out that the disputed domain name merely inverts the letters “i” and “s” found in Complainant’s marks and amounts to a case of typosquatting. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It notes that Respondent has not received authorization or a license to use any of the FIRSTONSITE marks or to represent itself as part of First Onsite’s business. According to Complainant, Respondent is not affiliated with First Onsite and has not in any other way been permitted by First Onsite to offer First Onsite’s services, or to register any domain name incorporating the FIRSTONSITE marks. Furthermore, Complainant maintains that Respondent has not used, and is not using, the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of legitimate goods or services. Instead, Respondent appears to have registered the disputed domain name solely to take advantage of the registered FIRSTONSITE trademarks by registering a nearly identical disputed domain name. With respect to the issue of “bad faith” registration and use, Complainant points to previous UDRP panel decisions holding that the intentional registration of a disputed domain name using a minor spelling variation of a complainant’s mark constitutes bad faith. Complainant also argues that where, as here, a complainant’s business has existed for years before the respondent registered the disputed domain name, a panel may infer that the respondent “knew or should have known” of the protected marks when it registered the disputed domain name. page 3 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name consists of a mere variation of Complainant’s mark inverting the letters “i” and “s” as found in Complainant’s FIRSTONSITE marks. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9, “A domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling, referred to as typosquatting) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. 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 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds 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. As determined above, the disputed domain name represents a case of typosquatting. Although Respondent’s name includes “firstoniste”, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by this name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith This is a case of passive holding. 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. To 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 longstanding and prior use of Complainant’s marks, the fact that the disputed domain name constitutes a classic case of typosquatting, that the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant’s domain name <firstonsite.com>, and that Respondent failed to submit a Response. Taking all of this into account, the Panel finds it implausible that the disputed domain name could be used in good faith and concludes that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element 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 <firstoniste.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Jeffrey M. Samuels/ Jeffrey M. Samuels Sole Panelist Date: March 23, 2026

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