Nominalss.com

The timeline behind nominalss.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 Nominal LLC v. Maci Woyat Case No. D2026-0704 1. The Parties Complainant is Nominal LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by RM Warner P.L.C., United States. Respondent is Maci Woyat, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nominalss.com> is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (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 20, 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 Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 20, 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 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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 an e-commerce company based in the United States that advertises, markets, promotes, offers for sale, sells, and distributes jewelry goods associated with a particular cultural theme, primarily through a website associated with the domain name <nominalx.com>. Complainant has operated since 2018 and has a registration for a trademark in the United States as follows: Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date NOMINAL United States 14 5,878,130 October 8, 2019 Complainant asserts that it has common law rights in the NOMINAL mark separate and apart from the registered trademark, (collectively the “NOMINAL Marks”). The disputed domain name was registered on December 6, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website offering jewelry associated with the same cultural theme as Complainant’s website. 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 contends that it has rights in the NOMINAL Marks as noted herein. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is substantially identical to the NOMINAL Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the NOMINAL Marks, with the only difference being the addition of the letters “ss” after the NOMINAL Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the NOMINAL Marks or to register or use the disputed domain name, (ii) Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use offering of good or service or any bona fide offering of goods or services and is instead operating a website that mimics the layout, style, fonts, colors, and other specific features of Complainant’s website, which does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests, and (iii) there is no evidence Respondent has ever been known by the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as evidenced by the almost eight year gap between Complainant’s first use of the NOMINAL Marks and the registration date of the disputed domain name, the similarity between the NOMINAL Marks and the disputed domain name, and Respondent’s operation of a website that mimics many aspects of Complainant’s website, which evidence Respondent’s clear knowledge of the NOMINAL Marks at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Complaint further contends that Respondent’s clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name evidence Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. 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 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. 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 also finds Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the NOMINAL Marks for the purposes of the Policy through its operation of a website at the <nominalx.com> domain name displaying the NOMINAL Marks in connection with the offering of the Complainant’s goods since 2018. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The NOMINAL Marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOMINAL Marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “ss”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 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 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, claimed operation of a copycat website, 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 Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s NOMINAL Marks as evidenced by its operation of the copycat website after registering the disputed domain name, which demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks. 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 here, claimed operation of a copycat website, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <nominalss.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: April 21, 2026

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