Hudabeauty-sale.com

The timeline behind hudabeauty-sale.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 Huda Beauty Limited v. sale Zhuang Case No. D2026-0647 1. The Parties The Complainant is Huda Beauty Limited, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, represented by Rouse Consultancy (Shanghai) Ltd., China. The Respondent is sale Zhuang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hudabeauty-sale.com> is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2026. On February 16, 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 24, 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 24, 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 25, 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 March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 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 a company founded by Ms Huda Kattan, to develop beauty products under the brand HUDABEAUTY. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations f or HUDABEAUTY, inter alia: - European trademark HUDABEAUTY No. 015755549 of December 19, 2016; - United States of America (“United States”) trademark HUDABEAUTY No. 5459220 of May 1, 2018. The Complainant’s of f icial web site is operated under the domain name <hudabeauty.com>, that was registered on April 3, 2010. The disputed domain name is <hudabeauty-sale.com>. It was registered on November 11, 2025 and is directed to a web sitethat copies the contents of the Complainant’s official web site, such as the trademark, texts, photographs and representation of products. The Respondent also purports to be “Huda Beauty Of f icial Store” in the header of the website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad f aith. The Complainant puts the emphasis on the fact that the disputed domain name is routed to a copycat of its own of f icial web site, and thus is used to impersonate the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (p arag rap h 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Although the addition of other terms here, “sale” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term d oes not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel f inds that the f irst 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 dif f icult 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not af f iliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name, does not own any proprietary rights in the name “hudabeauty” and does not make any bona fide use - neither commercial nor noncommercial, of the same. The Complainant highlights that the disputed domain name routes towards an active website where its trademark and its products are exhibited. A comparison of the Complainant’s website and the Respondent’s website (as per screenshots supplied by the Complainant) reflects that some texts, images and photographs of the Complainant’s products, as published in its own website, are reproduced in the Respondent’s website. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain name for its website would be fictious and that, in any case, should actual sales be perf ormed, the products of f ered f or sale by the Respondent would most likely be counterf eits. page 4 In any event, the Panel also notices that the disputed domain name is f ormed with the Complainant’s trademark, and that the related website does not contain any disclaimer that the same is not run by the Complainant, as sole trademark owner and manufacturer of the trademarked products. To the contrary, the Respondent purports to be “Huda Beauty Of f icial Store” in the header of the website. Even if the Respondent was an unauthorized but legitimate reseller of the Complainant’s goods, it should have inserted in its website a clear disclaimer inf orming the public that it is not the manuf acturer of the goods, but only a distributor, all the more since the disputed domain name induces that the same is related to the of f icial online store of the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8). It is a consensus view among UDRP panels that a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide of f ering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements. These requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site is accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder. See: Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2001-0903; and ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., ITT Corporation v. Douglas Nicoll, Differential Pressure Instruments, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2008-0936. In the present matter, in the absence of any disclaimer and the nature of the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the term “sale”, which carries a risk of implied af f iliation with the Complainant, and taking into account the contentions of the Complainant, that the Respondent has not contested, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisf ied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in relation with a website that copies the contents of the Complainant’s of f icial web site and thus impersonates the Complainant. There is no doubt in the present matter that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name, as the Respondent’s website does exhibit the Complainant products and reproduces images, texts and photographs taken f rom the Complainant’s website. It is also noted that the Respondent’s website is conf using as it can be construed by any unsuspecting Internet users as the genuine online store of the Complainant. As stated above, the said website does not contain any disclaimer inf orming the public that the Respondent is not the original manuf acturer of the trademarked goods. To the contrary, the Respondent purports to be “Huda Beauty Of f icial Store” in the header of the website. The Respondent is thus making a misleading and possible fraudulent use of the Complainant’s trademarks and images of products, with a view to diverting traffic to its own profit. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or activity, here, claimed copycat sites, and passing of f , constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. page 5 The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of 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 <hudabeauty-sale.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2026

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