Udemycn.com

The timeline behind udemycn.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 Udemy, Inc. v. Theresa W Chavez Case No. D2026-0507 1. The Parties The Complainant is Udemy, Inc., United States of America, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Theresa W Chavez, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <udemycn.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 6, 2026. On February 6, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 9, 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 amended Complaint on February 13, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 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, Udemy, Inc., is a United States company that provides online courses allowing users (businesses, professionals and students) access to over 250,000 courses for the purposes of e-learning. The Complainant’s service is available in 77 languages and more than 81 million learners utilise its platform across more than 180 countries. The Complainant has approximately 5,000 employees and revenue of USD 796 million as of 2025. The Complainant has a portfolio of trade mark registrations for UDEMY marks, including the following: - United States Trade Mark Registration No. 4314406 for UDEMY in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42, registered on April 2, 2013; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 011006319 for UDEMY in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42, registered on November 28, 2012. The disputed domain name <udemycn.com> was registered on December 9, 2025. The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name has been used to host a website purporting to be the Complainant’s Chinese official website, and later changed to operate a page with pay-per-click links. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name did not resolve to any website. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name continued to resolve to the same page with pay-per-click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UDEMY marks. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the UDEMY mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or has undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather, as the Complainant further contends, has used it to earn a pay-per-click sum. The Complainant also claims that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any connection to UDEMY mark, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant therefore argues that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 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 Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the UDEMY trade marks. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the disputed domain name incorporates the term “udemy”, which is identical to the Complainant’s UDEMY trade marks. The inclusion of the additional term “cn” (a common abbreviation for “China”) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11.1. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the UDEMY trade marks and in showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks. 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 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. In this case, the Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade marks and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Having reviewed the available records, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or other legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated or connected with the Complainant in any manner, and the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license or authorization to use or register a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s UDEMY trade marks. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and did not provide any information or factors that could potentially establish prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The prior use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website purporting to be the Complainant’s Chinese official website does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. page 4 Panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case. Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third and final element that a complainant must prove is that the respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. 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. For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. In the present case, the Panel observes that the disputed domain name, is composed of the Complainant’s UDEMY trade mark together with the term “cn”, which is a common abbreviation for “China” and can easily mis-lead Internet users that the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s domain name for the China market. The Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s UDEMY trade mark together with additional elements directly related to the Complainant’s market of business, demonstrates the Respondent’s clear awareness of the Complainant and its trade mark rights. Regarding the question of whether the Respondent acted in bad faith at the time of registration, the Respondent appears to be trading on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, to resolve to a website purporting to be the Complainant’s official Chinese page 5 website, and to resolve to a website with pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s business, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark, which constitutes bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 <udemycn.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Joseph Simone/ Joseph Simone Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2026

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