Influxbpo.com

The timeline behind influxbpo.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 Influx Inc. v. Waleed Naeem Case No. D2026-0703 1. The Parties The Complainant is Inf lux Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is Waleed Naeem, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <inf luxbpo.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2026. On February 19, 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 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 20, 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 24, 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 for Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for 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 February 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 17, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on February 25, 2026. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, on March 23, 2026, the Center inf ormed the Parties that it would proceed with the panel appointment process. page 2 The Center appointed Iris Quadrio as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 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, a company founded in 2013 by Leni Mayo and Michael De Wildt, operates as a provider of on-demand customer support and business process outsourcing (BPO) services for brands and technology companies. Its service of f erings include f ully managed customer support teams, back-of f ice support, enterprise call center solutions, and technical support, all delivered on a f lexible, pay-as-you-go basis and available 24/7 across all time zones. The Complainant operates globally and serves clients ranging f rom startups to established enterprises, primarily in the SaaS and e-commerce sectors. It operates its principal website at <inf lux.com>. The Complainant is the owner of a trademark incorporating the INFLUX mark in the United States under Registration No. 4956316, registered since May 10, 2016, f or class 42. The disputed domain name <influxbpo.com> was registered on September 26, 2023, and was last updated on October 5, 2025. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an active website of f ering customer support services, BPO and outsourcing services, and customer experience solutions. These services are directly competitive with those provided by the Complainant under the INFLUX trademark. The Panel notes that while the website at the disputed domain name offers services identical to those of the Complainant, it does not appear to reproduce the Complainant’s logo, typography, or color scheme. The Respondent is Waleed Naeem, located in Pakistan. The record does not indicate any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, nor does it indicate that the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating the INFLUX mark. 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 <influxbpo.com> is confusingly similar to its INFLUX trademark, on which the Complainant has prior rights. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name entirely reproduces its trademark, and that the addition of the term "bpo" does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity but rather increases it, given that it directly corresponds to the Complainant's industry. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the INFLUX mark in any manner, and that the Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant additionally submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the use of the domain name to of f er competing services does not constitute a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered more than seven years af ter the Complainant secured trademark protection, and that the Respondent’s combination of the INFLUX page 3 mark with the term "bpo" demonstrates deliberate targeting of the Complainant’s business. The Complainant f urther argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer directly competing services f alls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and that the use of a privacy service at the time of registration reinf orces an inf erence of bad f aith. Finally, the Complainant requests that the Administrative Panel order the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the f ollowing, namely that: 1. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and 2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and 3. the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. 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 straightf orward 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The record shows that the Complainant owns a trademark registration f or INFLUX in the United States, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name by more than seven years. 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. Disregarding the generic Top-Level-Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s INFLUX trademark in its entirety, f ollowed by the term "bpo", a well-known acronym f or "business process outsourcing". Although the addition of this term may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that it does 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 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. page 4 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 diff 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating it. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent holds any trademark or other rights corresponding to it. The available Registrar information identifies the registrant as Waleed Naeem, a name that does not correspond to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, while the disputed domain name resolves to an active website offering customer support, BPO, and outsourcing services, such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The services of f ered directly compete with those of the Complainant and are offered under a domain name that reproduces the Complainant's mark in its entirety. Panels have consistently f ound that using a domain name incorporating a complainant's mark to of f er competing services does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The website is clearly commercial in nature, and there is no evidence of any disclaimer, commentary, criticism, or other indication of legitimate noncommercial or f air use. The Panel f inds 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 f aith. The record shows that the Complainant’s INFLUX trademark has been registered in the United States since May 10, 2016, more than seven years before the registration of the disputed domain name on September 26, 2023. In addition, as a result of the Complainant’s longstanding use of the term "influx", such term has acquired distinctiveness as a source identif ier in the customer support and BPO sector. Given the Complainant’s established presence in the customer support and BPO industry under the INFLUX mark, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent combined the INFLUX mark in its entirety with the term "bpo", an acronym that directly and specif ically corresponds to the Complainant's core business. In the Panel’s view, this combination is suf f iciently deliberate and industry-specif ic to support a f inding that the Respondent targeted the Complainant's mark at the time of registration. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an active website offering customer support, BPO, and customer experience services that directly compete with those of the Complainant. The Panel f inds that this conduct f alls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, in that the Respondent has intentionally page 5 attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's services. The absence of any disclaimer or differentiation on the Respondent's website further supports this conclusion. The Panel additionally finds that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to of f er competing services is consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, as it is apt to disrupt the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers who are likely to associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant. 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 <inf luxbpo.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Iris Quadrio/ Iris Quadrio Sole Panelist Date: April 10, 2026

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