Spacechain.com

The timeline behind spacechain.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 SpaceChain Foundation Ltd. v. Nguyen Duy Phong Case No. D2026-0615 1. The Parties The Complainant is SpaceChain Foundation Ltd., Singapore, internally represented. The Respondent is Nguyen Duy Phong, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <spacechain.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 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 (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 18, 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 20, 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 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2026. The Center appointed Keiji Kondo as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 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 Singapore entity and has several trademark registrations including: Singapore Trademark Registration No. 40201809570W, registered on May 23, 2018, for the mark shown below for Classes 36, 38 and 42: The Complainant also has United States (“US”) trademark registration No. 5946908, registered on December 31, 2019, for the same mark. The disputed domain name is <spacechain.com>, registered on December 29, 2025, and it redirects to a gambling site. The Complainant has owned and operated the disputed domain name in connection with its official business. Inadvertently the Complainant let the disputed the domain name expire and it was subsequently re- registered by the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that: The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)). The Complainant has trademark registrations for the trademark SPACE CHAIN in such jurisdictions as Singapore and the US. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. It is well established under UDRP precedent that where a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark, the domain name will be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark. Any addition of generic terms, descriptive words, hyphens, or other nondistinctive elements does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2)). The Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner, including as part of a domain name. The disputed domain name resolves by redirecting Internet users to a Vietnamese-language website branded “XOILAC86”, which promotes online football streaming and prominently displays advertising for online betting services. The content is entirely unrelated to the Complainant, its business, or any legitimate activity connected to the Complainant’s trademark. page 3 Such use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. It is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii), as the website is clearly commercial in nature and designed to attract traffic for advertising and betting-related monetization. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s trademark, namely, “Space Chain”, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3)). The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Complainant’s trademark rights in SPACE CHAIN substantially predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is using this disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an unrelated third-party Vietnamese website featuring football streaming content and online betting advertisements, including prominent “8xbet” promotional banners and calls-to-action such as “Cược ngay” (“Bet now”). This conduct falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which provides that evidence of bad faith exists where a respondent uses a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or another online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. In this case, Internet users who type the disputed domain name would reasonably expect to reach the Complainant’s official website or an online location legitimately affiliated with the Complainant. Instead, they are diverted to a third-party gambling/streaming website. This constitutes a classic case of misleading diversion and “initial interest confusion,” where the Respondent exploits the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark to obtain traffic and commercial benefit. Given (i) the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant’s trademark rights accrued, and (iii) the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for commercial redirection to gambling-related content, the only reasonable inference is that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant owned and operated the disputed domain name continuously since 2016 in connection with its official business. However, due to an unintended technical failure in receiving renewal notifications (related to the Complainant’s AWS technical issue and email configuration), the disputed domain name expired unintentionally and was subsequently re-registered by the Respondent. The Respondent immediately redirected the disputed domain name to a gambling and betting website, evidencing classic opportunistic bad-faith re-registration for commercial gain. This constitutes a recoverable expired domain name case under established UDRP precedent. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 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 Complainant has trademark registrations for a logo consisting of a graphic mark and stylized letters reading “SPACE CHAIN”. Although a trademark registration with design elements would satisfy the requirement that the complainant show “rights in a mark”, panels would tend to focus on the non-design elements for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. 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. 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. The Panel notes that the Complainant has successfully shown that the disputed domain name resolves by redirecting Internet users to a Vietnamese-language website branded “XOILAC86”, which promotes online football streaming and prominently displays advertising for online betting services. The circumstances of the case, in the absence of a response, clearly show that none of the following circumstances exist: - The disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; - The Respondent has been known by the disputed domain name; or - The Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. 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 the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2025, well after the trademark registration by the Complainant in Singapore in 2018. In addition, the Panel notes that the Complainant has successfully shown that the disputed domain name was used in connection with the business of the Complaint before registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, for example in 2017. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is now used to direct Internet users to a Vietnamese- language website branded “XOILAC86”, which promotes online football streaming and prominently displays advertising for online betting services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent, being aware of the reputation of the Complainant, acquired, and has been using, the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. 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 <spacechain.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Keiji Kondo/ Keiji Kondo Sole Panelist Date: March 31, 2026

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