Thefairyloot.com

The timeline behind thefairyloot.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 FairyLoot Ltd v. Lily Miller Case No. D2026-0657 1. The Parties The Complainant is FairyLoot Ltd, United Kingdom, self-represented. The Respondent is Lily Miller, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thefairyloot.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 16, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 18, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 23, 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 23, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint [together with the amendment to the Complaint/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 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 17, 2026. The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, a company incorporated in England, offers for sale subscription-based book services and related merchandise, which may be purchased online at its official website <fairyloot.com>. The Complainant has registered several trademarks, including the United Kingdom trademark registration No. 00003301147 for FAIRYLOOT, registered on September 7, 2018, the United States trademark registration No. 7182653 for FAIRYLOOT, registered on October 3, 2023, and the European Union trademark registration No. 019021150 for FAIRYLOOT, registered on October 2, 2024 (together hereinafter referred to as the “Mark”). The Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently displays the Mark and uses website images, branding elements and overall styling which reproduce the Complainant’s official website. The disputed domain name was registered on December 27, 2025, and resolved to a copycat website at the time the Complaint was filed. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name still resolves to a copycat website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it 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 reproduces the Mark, in which it has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark and that the addition of the word “the” before the Mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the Mark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and never had any affiliation with the Complainant (which never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner). Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is also using it in bad faith, for commercial gain. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Aspects – Failure to Respond As aforementioned, no Response was received from the Respondent. page 3 Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. The Panel does not find any exceptional circumstance in this case which would cause the Panel to proceed differently. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the event of a default. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Panel finds that, as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. 6.2. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds that the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the Mark being precede by the word “the”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Regarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name, it is well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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 page 4 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. 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 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used 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. The Complainant provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a copycat website, passing off as the Complainant’s website. Prior panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In addition, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have a duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others, and which would infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of a third party. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141. In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent clearly failed to abide by such duty. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 <thefairyloot.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Louis-Bernard Buchman/ Louis-Bernard Buchman Sole Panelist Date: March 26, 2026

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