Horseparency.com

The timeline behind horseparency.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 Alix Sauvage v. Domain Admin Case No. D2026-0581 1. The Parties The Complainant is Alix Sauvage, France, represented by Cabinet GAMBERT, France. The Respondent is Domain Admin, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <horseparency.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2026. On February 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 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 (Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 13, 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 16, 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 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 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 Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 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 is an individual residing in France, relying on trademark rights from the European Union trademark HORSE PARENCY (figurative), having registration number 019238646, filed on August 28, 2025, and registered on February 11, 2026. The Complainant’s trademark is registered across various classes of goods and services (9, 16, 18, 25, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45), covering a variety of the equine industry ecosystem, from software to veterinary services. The disputed domain name was registered on August 29, 2025, and it resolves to a parked registrar page, indicating that the disputed domain name is for sale for USD 1,999. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that she 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 identical to the Complainant’s trademark, as it incorporates the Complainant’s HORSE PARENCY trademark in its entirety, without any modification, deletion, or addition of other terms. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the trademark HORSE PARENCY is a coined term resulting from the linguistic combination of the words “horse” and “transparency”, being therefore inherently distinctive. As regards the second element, the Complainant argues that she has never licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark HORSE PARENCY in any manner, nor to register any domain name incorporating said mark. Moreover, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered on August 29, 2025, exactly one day after the Complainant filed her European Union trademark application (i.e. on August 28, 2025). Further such registration, the disputed domain name is offered for sale at an inflated price. A registration made solely to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark filing cannot constitute a bona fide offering. With respect to the third element, the Complainant submits that the registration of the disputed domain name occurred less than 24 hours after the trademark application of the Complainant, and that such an immediate reaction creates a strong presumption of bad faith. The term “horseparency” is not a dictionary word; it is a unique, invented term, and the probability that the Respondent independently invented the exact same term and registered it the very next day by coincidence is virtually nonexistent. To further substantiate this argument, the Complainant has adduced evidence that in the very early hours of August 29, 2025, it received an official receipt from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), confirming that the trademark application was formally acknowledged and entered into the system, and the disputed domain name was registered only few hours later the same day. The only plausible explanation is that the Respondent utilizes an automated algorithm or software to monitor trademark registries (such as the EUIPO) for new filings and automatically registers the corresponding domain names before the trademark owner can do so. Therefore, the Respondent clearly targeted the Complainant’s trademark to exploit its value. page 3 The Complainant also argues that Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy applies, as the Respondent has put the disputed domain name for sale for USD 1,999 which is in excess of documented costs directly related to the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “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”. Likewise, paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, provides that “the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”. No response has been received from the Respondent in this case. Even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Complainant still bears the burden of proving that all requirements are fulfilled. To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly 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 faith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.2. Concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. The Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.1, and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademark HORSE PARENCY for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. As regards the second limb of the first element, the test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. It has also long been held that generic Top-Level Domains are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a trademark. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. 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. The Panel finds that there is no relation, disclosed to the Panel or otherwise apparent from the record, between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s HORSE PARENCY trademark. Moreover, there is no element from which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s right over the disputed domain name under the Policy, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, the website to which the disputed domain name currently resolves offers the disputed domain name for sale to the public at a price likely in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to it, which could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods/services or justifying rights and legitimate interests on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent did not file any response to the Complaint and did not participate in this proceeding, as such, the Respondent did not present any evidence for supporting any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the second element of the Policy has 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. 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 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent, based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, knew or should have known that the disputed domain name consisted of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. This is underlined by the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark HORSE PARENCY and was registered on the same day as the acknowledgement of the Complainant’s trademark application in the European Union, reflecting an intent to target the Complainant’s nascent trademark rights. See section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. page 5 The Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is offered for sale. This, in view of the finding that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, given also the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and the identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademarks, as well as the failure of the Respondent to present a credible rationale for registering the disputed domain name appears to signal an intention on the part of the Respondent to derive commercial gain from the resale of the disputed domain name, riding on the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark (this Panel accepts that the amount for which the disputed domain name has been put for sale presumably exceeds, without evidence to the contrary, the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the disputed domain name). The circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy are applicable. Furthermore, the underlying beneficial registrant’s use of a proxy service to obscure its true identity further evidences bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the Respondent has not formally participated in these proceedings and has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions and to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of the case represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the 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 <horseparency.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mihaela Maravela/ Mihaela Maravela Sole Panelist Date: March 19, 2026

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