Discounttiresale.com

The timeline behind discounttiresale.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation v. Richard Dolly Case No. D2026-0517 1. The Parties The Complainant is The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ballard Spahr, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Richard Dolly, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <discounttiresale.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 6, 2026. On February 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 12, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on February 17, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 11, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 is in the business of retail tire and wheel sales. It owns the trademark DISCOUNT TIRE, f or which it enjoys the benef its of registration (e.g., United States Reg. No. 4,639,389, registered on November 18, 2014). The Complainant has owned the domain name <discounttire.com> since at least 1997, which it uses to host its of f icial website. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2026. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to establish a website that prominently bears the Complainant’s mark and seeks to imitate the Complainant, purporting to offer goods identical to those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisf ied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Panel f inds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The standing (or threshold) test for conf using similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: f irst, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to that mark. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certif icate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the DISCOUNT TIRE mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the DISCOUNT TIRE mark in its entirety with the addition of the term “sale”, which does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. The DISCOUNT TIRE mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. page 3 The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established this f irst element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by f irst considering whether the Complainant has made a prima f acie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such a showing is made, the burden of production shif ts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s marks, (2) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to present itself as the website of the Complainant, and (3) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and of f er purportedly identical goods. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this showing. The use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and pass itself of f as the Complainant can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad f aith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may f ind bad f aith when a respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent’s website or location or a product or service on respondent’s website or location. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Registering and using the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant and otherwise hold itself out as operating as the Complainant is a clear example of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has established this third element under the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <discounttiresale.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2026

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