Usmelaleuca.com

The timeline behind usmelaleuca.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 Melaleuca, Inc. v. Simei Bert Case No. D2026-0667 1. The Parties The Complainant is Melaleuca, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is Simei Bert, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <usmelaleuca.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) 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 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 19, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 19, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 26, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 Idaho, United States corporation that specializes in wellness products such as personal care products, home cleaning products, supplements and nutrition products, medicines and treatments, baby care products, beauty products and essential oils, conducting its business exclusively online. The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): MELALEUCA, United States Registration No. 1,917,518, registered on September 12, 1995, with a first use in commerce of September 1985, in International Classes 3 and 5; and MELALEUCA THE WELLNESS COMPANY (stylized), United States Registration No. 2,958,954, registered on June 7, 2005, with a first use in commerce of July 18, 2001, in International Class 35. The Complainant also owns registered trademarks in other jurisdictions worldwide, including, not limited to Canada and Japan. The aforementioned trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “MELALEUCA Mark”. The Complainant has used, promoted, and advertised the MELALEUCA Mark for over 30 years. By virtue of these efforts, the trademark has become well recognized by consumers as the source of the Complainant’s goods and services. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <melaleuca.com>, which resolves to its official website at “www.melaleuca.com”, and which offers and sells the Complainant’s products. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 13, 2025 and at the time of filing of the Complaint, resolved to a website that impersonated the Complainant’s official website, prominently displaying the MELALEUCA Mark and copying the Complainant’s products that are offered for sale. As of the writing of this Decision, however, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an error landing page with no substantive content. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark because the Disputed Domain Name contains the MELALEUCA Mark in its entirety, preceded by the term “us”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, among other things, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the MELALEUCA Mark, and the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith because, among other things, the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant or to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant for the purpose of deceiving unsuspecting consumers. page 3 The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)): (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MELALEUCA Mark as explained below. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the MELALEUCA Mark based on its years of use as well as its registered trademarks for the MELALEUCA Mark in the United States and jurisdictions worldwide. The consensus view of panels is that “[w]here the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case”. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MELALEUCA Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the MELALEUCA Mark in its entirety preceded by the term “us” and then followed by the gTLD “.com”. The test for confusing similarity involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Here, the MELALEUCA Mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. As stated in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Thus, the addition of the term “us” to the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., Allianz Global Investors of America, L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) v. Bingo-Bongo, WIPO Case No. D2011-0795; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia, WIPO Case No. D2008-0923. page 4 Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is a technical requirement. As such, it is well established that a gTLD may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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. In this case, given the facts as set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, and based on the available record, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its MELALEUCA Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, nor any evidence that the Respondent was using or making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4(c). The Respondent created the Disputed Domain Name by combining the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark with the term “us”, intending to target the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s website does not constitute legitimate or noncommercial fair use under the Policy but rather the Respondent was using the Disputed Domain Name likely for commercial gain. In this case, the Respondent’s website had a similar look and feel to that of the Complainant, plus the Respondent, without authorization, prominently displayed the MELALEUCA Mark and identical images of the Complainant’s products on its website, thus demonstrating that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. In sum, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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. The Panel finds that based on the record the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a disputed 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. page 5 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 Disputed Domain Name incorporates the MELALEUCA Mark in its entirety, resolving to a website that displayed the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark throughout. Therefore, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its MELALEUCA Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (“a finding of bad faith may be made where the respondent ‘knew or should have known’ of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name”). In this regard, the fact that the Respondent featured the MELALEUCA Mark on its website also indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s MELALEUCA Mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, another indication of bad faith. Moreover, the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Here, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name for a commercial website featuring the MELALEUCA Mark and the Complainant’s products indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). Finally, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name was an attempt to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name was also likely to confuse Internet users into incorrectly believing that the Respondent was authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established 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 <usmelaleuca.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda M. Braun/ Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: April 8, 2026

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