Zepboundmx.com

The timeline behind zepboundmx.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 Eli Lilly and Company v. luis enrique Reyes Case No. D2026-0844 1. The Parties The Complainant is Eli Lilly and Company, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, U.S. The Respondent is luis enrique Reyes, Mexico. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <zepboundmx.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 2, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 2, 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 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication Tirzepatide under the brand ZEPBOUND for use in connection with pharmaceutical products for the treatment of obesity in November 2023, the Complainant launched the ZEPBOUND product in December 2023. By the end of 2023, the product had produced over 175 million dollars in revenue. In 2025, the product produced more than 13 billion dollars (USD13,542,000,000.00) worldwide. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ZEPBOUND, such as U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark registration number 7,288,373 (filing date April 14, 2022, registration date January 23, 2024). The Complainant has obtained at least 64 registrations for the Mark around the world. The Complainant also has an Internet presence at “zepbound.com” which redirects to the domain name <zepbound.lilly.com>. The Complainant registered the <zepbound.com> domain name in April 2022. The Domain Name appears to be registered on October 21, 2025. The Complainant documents that the Domain Name has been used for a website that mirrors the Complainant’s website and appears to offer gray market/counterfeit products. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and argues that its trademark is an invented word with high degree of distinctiveness. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark are confusingly similar. The Domain Name reproduces the trademark, with the addition of the geographic term “MX”. The addition of a geographic term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use and register its trademark in a domain name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to direct Internet traffic to a website that mimics the Complainant’s website. This is not bona fide as the Respondent offers gray market/counterfeit goods without disclosing the lack of a relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant argues that it is evidence of bad faith when a domain name is registered to utilize another’s well-known trademark for attracting Internet users to a website for commercial gain. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to drive Internet traffic to its website to profit from the sale of gray market/counterfeit products, all while concealing its identity, is clear evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to offer prescription-only products without requirement for a prescription, which further supports a finding of bad faith. It is a final factor of bad faith that the Respondent likely has provided false or misleading contact information. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ZEPBOUND. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of “mx”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Respondent is not affiliated with or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The use of the Domain Name is not genuine, but rather evidence of bad faith, see below. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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. The Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It follows from the composition and use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name appears to be acquired to offer counterfeited versions – with prescription - of the Complainant’s product, while creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. Moreover, the Panel notes the Respondent has likely used false registration information, which in the circumstances of this case further supports a finding of bad faith. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 4 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Domain Name <zepboundmx.com> transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2026

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