Byomaoutlet.com

The timeline behind byomaoutlet.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 Byoma Limited v. no, lar frank Case No. D2026-1010 1. The Parties The Complainant is Byoma Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is no, lar frank, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <byomaoutlet.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 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 (User #84bd1fa7 Privacy See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 12, 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 March 13, 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 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi 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 by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant founded in 2020 in Scotland, United Kingdom, has been doing business in skincare market. Its products are designed to cleanse, treat, moisturize, and protect skin. The Complainant’s products are available online and in stores in many jurisdictions. It was reported that by 2025 the Complainant generated $500 million in sales. The Complainant has registered its BYOMA trademark, such as: - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00003610176 for BYOMA (word mark), registered on August 6, 2021, in classes 3 and 35; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 018443892 for BYOMA (word mark), registered on October 14, 2021, in classes 3 and 35; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1633315 for BYOMA (word mark), registered on November 2, 2021, in class 3. The Complainant operates its official website at the domain name <byoma.com>, where, among others, consumers can utilize the Complainant’s AI Skin Analysis Tool to find the correct product for their skin type. The Complainant also maintains a social media presence on platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, under the name of BYOMA. The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2026. The Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website that appeared to be an online store impersonating the Complainant. The website prominently displayed the Complainant’s BYOMA logo and trademark, closely resembled the Complainant’s official website, and reproduced the Complainant’s copyrighted product images and other distinctive visual elements. The Respondent purported to offer the Complainant’s products for sale at discounted prices. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the page 3 following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy, since it includes the Complainant’s BYOMA mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “outlet” in the disputed domain name does not prevent this finding. 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. 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 Complainant has been doing business in skincare market since 2020 online and in-stores in many jurisdictions, and it was reported that by 2025 the Complainant generated $500 million in sales. The Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, given the longstanding reputation of both the Complainant and the trademark. The Respondent’s goal in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users for potential gain by taking unfair advantage of and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark. This finding is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent’s use of the website at the disputed domain name to host a website with the look and feel of the Complainant’s website (including featuring the Complainant’s logo mark and copyrighted content copied from the Complainant’s website) to offer items for sale. With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, impersonation of the Complainant) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In the circumstances, the use of a privacy service further supports an inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active webpage. However, such fact does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding which has been firmly established in the cases under UDRP. In accordance with the doctrine, non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy in consideration of some facts. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. In the present case, considering: (i) the distinctiveness and popularity of the Complainant’s BYOMA mark; (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit any response providing evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; and (iii) the contact information for the disputed domain name was inaccurate as the provided street address was incomplete, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, 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 <byomaoutlet.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: April 20, 2026

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