Myalastin.shop

The timeline behind myalastin.shop

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 Alastin Skincare, Inc. v. Amy Wang Case No. D2026-0692 1. The Parties Complainant is Alastin Skincare, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Amy Wang, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <myalastin.shop> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2026. On February 18, 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 that differed from the named Respondent (User #f56dd1b4 Privacy, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 18, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 23, 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 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. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 17, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Jeffrey D. Steinhardt as 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 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a United States-based skincare company founded in 2015. Complainant offers clinically tested skincare products, particularly formulations to support skin before and after cosmetic procedures. Complainant’s products are physician-dispensed and sold through medical professionals such as dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and medical spas with licensed providers. Complainant owns and operates a website at “www.alastin.com”. Complainant owns numerous registrations internationally for its ALASTIN marks, including for example: United States Trademark Registration No. 7620559, registered on December 24, 2024 in International Class 3; European Union Trademark Registration No. 019027989, registered November 13, 2024 in Nice Class 3; and Mexican Trademark Registration No. 2767078, registered on October 14, 2024 in International Class 3. The disputed domain name was registered on January 3, 2026 and does not currently resolve to an active webpage. Complainant has submitted evidence that before commencement of these proceedings the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage that prominently displayed Complainant’s trademark, logotype, and product pictures, purporting to offer for sale Complainant’s trademarked goods. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant avers that “When the disputed domain name first came to the Complainant’s attention it resolved to an active website which appeared to offer the Complainant’s products for sale. ... The previous storefront hosted on the website associated with the disputed domain name closely mirrored the Complainant’s official website located at “alastin.com”. ... The Respondent’s website made use of the Complainant’s logotype.” Complainant annexes exhibits of Respondent’s website along with screenshots of Complainant’s authentic website at “www.alastin.com”, to illustrate the stylistic similarities in design and use of Complainant’s trademarks and logotypes. Complainant also alleges that Respondent is not a member of Complainant’s authorized distribution network, has no entitlement to distribute Complainant’s products, and that the items offered on Respondent’s website are likely to be counterfeit, parallel import, or grey-market goods. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 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. 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “my”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition of that word does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds that the first element of Policy paragraph 4(a) has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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. Complainant has submitted credible, unopposed evidence that the website to which the disputed domain name previously resolved had a similar look and feel to Complainant’s authentic website, and that it purported to offer Complainant’s branded products. The Panel accepts this evidence. The Panel also accepts Complainant’s allegations that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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, alleged sale of counterfeit goods, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds that the second element of Policy paragraph 4(a) has been established. page 4 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 record shows that Respondent targeted Complainant and its trademarks, seeking to trick Internet users into believing that Respondent was authorized by Complainant and that Respondent was offering the sale of genuine products under Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (“attempt[ing] to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Complainant’s] web site ... by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark ...”). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, alleged sale of counterfeit goods, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 also 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 Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to submit a response to the Complaint in these proceedings further affirms the Panel’s finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 <myalastin.shop> be transferred to Complainant. /Jeffrey D. Steinhardt/ Jeffrey D. Steinhardt Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2026

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