Monsterenergy.cards

The timeline behind monsterenergy.cards

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 Monster Energy Company v. New Net Case No. D2026-0742 1. The Parties Complainant is Monster Energy Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States. Respondent is New Net, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <monsterenergy.cards> is registered with Porkbun LLC (“Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on February 20, 2026. On February 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 24, 2026, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from that in the Complaint (e.g., the Complaint had indicated that Respondent was “unknown” and included an Annex that identified“Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC” as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 27, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant amended the Complaint on March 2, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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 makes and sells beverages and other items under the MONSTER ENERGY mark, which it has used for over 20 years. Complainant owns the following registrations for the MONSTER ENERGY mark: - United States Reg. No. 3,044,315, registered January 17, 2006, for liquid nutritional supplements. (disclaiming “ENERGY”); and - United States Reg. No. 4,036,681, registered October 11, 2011 for certain energy drinks (disclaiming “ENERGY”). Complainant owns and operates a website at the domain name <monsterenergy.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2026. At the time the Complaint was filed and at the time of this Decision, it does not resolve to an active website; it is parked. 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. In particular: - Since its introduction in 2002, Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY drinks have become well known throughout the world. Complainant has expanded its use of the mark from beverages to clothing, accessories, sports gear, stickers, decal, and other items. - Complainant has not authorized Respondent (or anyone else) to use the MONSTER ENERGY marks in a “.cards” domain name. - Respondent is not using the disputed domain name and it is inconceivable that Respondent could make a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name given the renown of Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To prevail under the Policy a complainant must prove, as to the domain name at issue, that: (a) it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights, (b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it, and (c) it has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy, paragraph 4(a). A respondent’s failure to respond does not automatically result in a finding for the complainant; the complainant continues to have the burden of establishing each element. Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, page 3 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. The Panel may, however, draw appropriate inferences from the default. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel determines that “New Net” is the appropriate Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.4.5 (in cases involving a privacy service, the panel has discretion to determine appropriate respondent). 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 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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 proceedings under the Policy is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving 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 remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. 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. The Panel finds 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. 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. Consistent with the views of other panels, see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3, the Panel finds that passively holding the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. In doing so, the Panel considers the totality of the circumstances: Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark is well known; Complainant’s trademark registrations long predate registration of the disputed domain name; page 4 the disputed domain name consists solely of Complainant’s mark, making good faith use implausible; Respondent did not respond to the Complaint; and Respondent concealed its identity in the publicly- available WhoIs. The Panel finds that a finding of bad faith under the Policy is not precluded and is appropriate. The Panel finds 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 <monsterenergy.cards> be transferred to Complainant. /Debra J. Stanek/ Debra J. Stanek Sole Panelist Date: April 28, 2026

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