Ospreypress.com

The timeline behind ospreypress.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 Osprey Publishing Limited v. Jony MAICK Case No. D2026-0702 1. The Parties The Complainant is Osprey Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Kilburn & Strode LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Jony MAICK, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ospreypress.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 18, 2026. On February 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 21, 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 (Registrant Details Redacted/The RDAP server redacted the value) 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 27, 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 March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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 a military history publisher, founded in 1968. It trades under the trademark OSPREY and owns many trademark registrations for OSPREY such as: - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00000924493, registered on May 2 , 1968; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00912413316, registered on November 15 , 2018; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018468866, registered on September 11, 2021. The Complainant promotes its business at the website “www.ospreypublishing.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2025, and resolves to a website which features the Complainant’s trademark and logo, and purports to offer, among others, the books published by the Complainant. The Complainant’s evidence also shows that a customer attempted to make a purchase on the website at the disputed domain name as it believed that the website was for the Complainant’s customers in the United States of America. After entering the card details, the website attempted to fraudulently charge the customer USD 250. 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 identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates the trademark fully. The term “press” is descriptive in the publishing field and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.com”, is disregarded as it is a standard registration requirement The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no legitimate reason to register the disputed domain name and it has clearly been selected to mislead Internet users that there is an association with the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark as it is well known in its field. The term “press” describes the Complainant’s business activity and has clearly been selected to misrepresent to consumers that the disputed domain name belongs to, and is operated or otherwise endorsed by the Complainant. The disputed domain name leads to a website which prominently features the Complainant’s trademarks, logos and trading name Osprey Publishing. It also has a layout and design similar to the Complainant’s website and has the Complainant’s copyright works. The disputed domain name is used to markets goods and services identical to those of the Complainant. The Respondent is targeting the Complainant and attempting to attract consumers for their own commercial gain, and in at least one instance a purported customer reported a potential phishing scam, experiencing actual confusion thinking that the disputed domain name was under the control of the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 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, “press”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off and phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy 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 Panel notes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business as the disputed domain name resolves to a website, which displays the Complainant’s trademark together with images belonging to the Complainant’s publishing, and replicates the overall look and feel of the Complainant’s website. Also, the Respondent’s website purports to offer, among others, books published by the Complainant. Additionally, the Complainant’s trademark existed for almost six decades by the time the disputed domain name was registered. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, passing off and phishing, constitutes bad faith. 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 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 <ospreypress.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nayiri Boghossian/ Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2026

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