Equifax.press

The timeline behind equifax.press

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 Equifax Inc. v. Tyler Patton Case No. D2026-1064 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Tyler Patton, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <equifax.press> 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 March 12, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 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 March 13, 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 13, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 5, 2026. On March 17, 2026, the Complainant requested a thirty-day suspension for settlement discussions. On March 31, 2026, the Respondent requested that the suspension be lifted because “[t]here have been no meaningful efforts by the Complainant toward settlement or substantive communication....”. The Respondent sent email communications with supplemental page 2 argumentation and evidence to the Center on March 15, March 16, March 24, April 3, April 9, April 11, April 14, and April 15, 2026. Conversely, on April 2, 2026, the Complainant submitted its Supplemental Filing and supporting annexes. The Parties’ communications to the Center of April 14 and 15, 2026, accused each other of abuse of the Policy. The Center appointed Phillip V. Marano 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. On May 6, 2026, the Panel issued its first Procedural Order to extend the decision deadline until May 11, 2026, in order to accommodate review of the multitude of unsolicited supplemental filings. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a multinational analytics and technology company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and is one of the three largest consumer credit reporting agencies in the world, with operations in Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America. The Complainant offers information about its goods and services on its official <equifax.com> website. The Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the EQUIFAX trademark in numerous countries, including EQUIFAX (Reg. No. 1,027,544) in the United States, registered on December 16, 1975, with the earliest priority dating back to March 4, 1975. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 7, 2026. At the time of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a Registrar parking page titled “EQUIFAX.PRESS” that read only “Launching Soon” and invited visitors to “Contact Us! Drop us a line!” by submitting their name and email address with a radial box to “Sign up for our email list for updates, promotions, and more.” 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. Notably, the Complainant asserts ownership of the EQUIFAX trademark and has adduced evidence of trademark registration, with earliest priority dating back to 1975. The Complainant asserts that its EQUIFAX trademark is well-known and the Complainant submitted evidence and citations to substantiate its assertion, which include: (i) prior panel decisions under the Policy that acknowledge the EQUIFAX is “well-known” or “highly-distinctive in every sense”; (ii) the Complainant’s operating revenue and income in 2025, which exceeded USD 6 billion and USD 1 billion respectively; (iii) the geographic scope of the Complainant’s trademark portfolio, which covers “at least 221 registrations in 56 different jurisdictions around the world that consist of or contain the word ‘Equifax,’ which was first used in commerce and registered in 1975”; and (iv) generally in support of the foregoing, the most recent annual report for the Complainant for the year ending December 31, 2025. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark, according to the Complainant, because it “contains the EQUIFAX trademark—and only the EQUIFAX trademark—in its entirety.” The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on: the lack of any relationship with the Complainant; the lack of any license, permission, or authorization from the Complainant; the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name; and the lack of any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by, or acquired any trademark rights in, the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for numerous reasons, including: the Complainant’s longstanding use, and the well-known nature, of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark; the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name, as supported by prior panel decisions that have applied the passive holding doctrine to the EQUIFAX trademark. Lastly, in its unsolicited supplemental filing, the Complainant challenges various “factually and legally inaccurate arguments submitted” by the Respondent. The Complainant argues that the Respondent failed to provide any documentation to support its arguments, and in particular points to an email exchange with the Respondent that lacked direct answers to any of the Complainant’s inquiries, such as “What sort of ‘press style commentary and public discussion’ do you plan to publish? What is your motivation for doing so? Are you a professional journalist? Have you done the same thing with other companies (and, if so, please send relevant links) ... Knowing more about your plans, motivation, background, etc., might help Equifax better understand the public interest perspective you have cited, which certainly could affect a potential settlement here.” The Complainant further notes that the Respondent has not offered any evidence to support its argument that the Respondent “developed the site and prepared content” but has “not launched it publicly because the domain is locked and because the proceedings intervened almost immediately”. And the Complainant highlights that the “mission of the .Press TLD is to serve as a single, distinct source on the web for any business to post news worthy information about themselves”, rather than third parties. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied either the second or third elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent argues that the disputed domain name “was registered very recently with the intention of supporting press-style commentary, discussion, and reporting regarding Equifax and issues related to consumer credit reporting practices” and that “the ‘.press’ top-level domain was deliberately selected because it clearly signals a context of journalism, commentary, and public discussion rather than corporate affiliation.” According to the Respondent, “[t]he circumstances of this dispute itself illustrate the importance of preserving space for independent commentary and public discussion” and “[t]he attempt to obtain control of a domain name structured for press and commentary purposes risks suppressing legitimate discussion about a corporation that has been the subject of significant public scrutiny concerning consumer data practices.” The Respondent also argues that it “has not used the domain name for impersonation, fraud, phishing, or any misleading commercial activity”, “[t]he domain has not been offered for sale to the Complainant or to any third party.” In its first unsolicited supplemental filing, the Respondent argues that any lack of evidence to support its arguments is resultant from the timing of the Complaint, which was “filed four days after registration” of the disputed domain name. The Respondent further argues that “Complainant cannot simply equate short-term non-resolution [of any website content on the disputed domain name] with the absence of legitimate interest.” The Respondent argues that such website content is “in a development stage interrupted by a four-day filing window” and that such website content vitiates any implied affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent further argues that “[t]his case does not resemble the classic passive-holding cases. I responded. I stated a contemplated noncommercial purpose. The registrar disclosed my identity. The Complainant did not prove false contact information. And the filing occurred so quickly after registration that the supposedly suspicious non-use is just what naturally exists before a site is deployed.” Finally, the Respondent has requested a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking determination based on: (i) the “premature” nature of the Complainant, which was filed only four days after registration; (ii) the Complainant’s decision not to make substantive amendments upon Registrar verification; and (iii) suspension by the Complainant to request additional information from the Complainant and explore settlement. page 4 In its second unsolicited supplemental filing, the Respondent offers screengrab evidence of: (i) metadata evidence that displays a March 3, 2026 creation date for website content to be used in connection with the disputed domain name; and (ii) site development screens, which include the disclaimer that it is an “Independent Site Not Affiliated with Equifax Inc.” The Respondent also asserts that “The .press TLD is a generic, open-use namespace, not restricted to trademark holders.” In its further unsolicited supplemental email correspondence to the Center, the Respondent argues in salient part that “Complainant’s assertion that I failed to provide evidence [of rights or legitimate interests] is inconsistent with the record” because “I have clearly and consistently stated the domain was registered for the purpose of independent, noncommercial commentary and public discussion relating to consumer credit reporting practices.” The Respondent further argues that “there is no evidence of bad faith use, commercial gain, or impersonation.” And “the timing of this matter is relevant” because “[t]he domain was placed into dispute shortly after registration, which limited the opportunity to further develop or publish content.” In further support of its arguments, on April 14, 2026, the Respondent contended to “continue development in a transparent and legitimate manner” and “create[] a temporary host domain” to “maintain active development and demonstrate bona fide preparations for use while the registrar lock remains in place” although “[t]he project website [which is publicly available at <pattonsignature.com>] is still in an early-to -mid stage of development and is not yet fully built out.” The Respondent also submitted Oregon Articles of Incorporation dated December 1, 2020, for a nonprofit corporation named “Deception Prevention United Inc.” 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must establish in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: 1. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; 2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and 3. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Preliminary Issue: Unsolicited Supplemental Filings Each Party has effectively accused the other Party of abuse of the Policy. The Respondent argues that the Complainant “fil[ed] a complaint first and attempt[ed] to investigate later [which] has been repeatedly criticized by panels as overreach and failure to investigate ... support[ing] a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, because it places a respondent into an administrative proceeding without any factual basis.” According to the Respondent, the Complainant “already deprived me of a month of use of my domain name”, “initiate[d] a proceeding without first confirming whether any of its allegations were true”, and “refus[ed] to amend the initial complaint when the registrar provided the respondent’s information, which was already publicly available in the first place.” This Reverse Domain Name Hijacking argument is addressed below by the Panel. Conversely, the Complainant argues that, “[s]ince the Center reinstated this proceeding ... Respondent has made six additional submissions” whereas the “Complainant has refrained from responding to or commenting on any of these submissions, as it is clear that Respondent is attempting to abuse the proceeding and that such numerous submissions are inappropriate and should be disregarded by the panel.” Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the Panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. Paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case. Unsolicited supplemental filings are therefore generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the Panel. Panels page 5 have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some unforeseen or exceptional circumstance). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), Section 4.6. In the present case, the Complainant has used its unsolicited supplemental filings to point out the lack of evidentiary support for the Response. In turn, the Respondent has used its multiple unsolicited supplemental filings to bolster its arguments with evidence, which presumably it could have originally filed with its Response. Nevertheless, in fairness to each Party, the Panel has read and considered each unsolicited supplemental filing from each Party. To do so, the Panel had to extend the decision deadline, as the Panel has attempted to accurately summarize all such filings in this decision. B. 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 3.1, section 1.7. Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the EQUIFAX trademark has been registered in numerous countries around the world as early as 1975, including in the United States with earliest priority dated back to 1975. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights in the EQUIFAX trademark have been established pursuant to the first element of the Policy. The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark. In this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark because, disregarding the .press generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the entirety of the identical mark matches the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name ... [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar [...]”). gTLDs, such as .press in the disputed domain name, are generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and are disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. The Respondent does not appear to dispute any of the foregoing. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. C. 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 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. page 6 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. Specifically, this finding is based on: (i) the well-known nature of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark; (ii) the identity of the disputed domain name to that trademark; (iii) the lack of any evidence, at the time of either the Complaint or the Response, to support any legitimate use by the Respondent in connection with claimed non-commercial commentary, criticism, or news reporting; and (iv) the suspect nature of the evidence proffered by the Respondent in its numerous subsequent unsolicited supplemental filings. Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered “fair” if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is often the central starting point to this inquiry. WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 2.5. Generally speaking, UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. Id . at Section 2.5.1. Here, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s well- known EQUIFAX trademark, and it therefore carries a high risk of an assumption of affiliation with the brand owner (which does not in fact exist). The Respondent, despite its multiple unsolicited supplemental filings, never offers an opinion or explanation for why its purported intended use necessitated a domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, or for the absence of any descriptive terms that might distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The parties have debated the meaning and purpose of the “.press” gTLD in conjunction with the disputed domain name, and that meaning may be relevant to the second element of the Policy. Id. at Section 1.11.2. It is evident to the panel that the descriptive term “press”, when coupled with nothing more than the Complainant’s well-known EQUIFAX trademark, falsely implies news that originates from the Complainant, rather than news about the Complainant from an independent third-party source. No matter which interpretation prevails, panels have increasingly found that even a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld> (including typos)); even where such a domain name is used in relation to genuine noncommercial free speech, panels tend to find that such a domain name creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. Id . at Section 2.6.2. For completeness, the Panel notes that beyond looking at the domain name itself and the nature of any additional terms (in particular where the term does not give a clear distinguishing signal), panels will assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case support a claimed fair use. However, an assessment of whether a use is fair necessitates some actual use or actual website content, which is not present in the evidentiary record of this case. Rather, the Respondent asserts that it has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with noncommercial news reporting. Non-exhaustive examples of demonstrable preparations to use a domain name under the Policy must exist “before any notice [ ] of the dispute” and be supported with clear contemporaneous (and ideally, dated) evidence of bona fide pre-complaint preparations is required, such as: (i) business formation-related due diligence/legal advice/correspondence, (ii) investment in website development or promotional materials such as advertising, letterhead, or business cards, (iii) a genuine (i.e., not pretextual) business plan utilizing the domain name, and credible signs of pursuit of the business plan, (iv) bona fide registration and use of related domain names, or (v) other circumstances generally pointing to a lack of indicia of cybersquatting intent. Id. at Section 2.2. Comparatively, the Respondent initially offered no evidence to support its claimed intended noncommercial use of the disputed domain name for news reporting. It was not until the Complainant highlighted the lack of any such evidence that the Respondent supplemented the record with evidence that it presumably should have had since before the Complaint was filed. In the view of the Panel, the Respondent should have been able to disclose this evidence in its email conversations with the Complainant, or append it to the Response. Specifically, the Respondent proffered metadata evidence and site development screens that display a March 3, 2026, creation date for website content allegedly to be used in connection with the disputed domain name. However, the probative value of this evidence is significantly diminished due to: (i) the ostensibly reactionary timing the Respondent added it to the record; (ii) the present day ease with which website content can be spun up and cut-and-paste screengrab images can be manipulated (and the Panel notes that the filing of a UDRP case does not prevent updates to a website); and (iii) the lack of any corroboration for page 7 the Respondent’s evidence from any independent third-party sources. Simply put, the Panel has no means to assess whether this evidence is legitimate, or whether it was fabricated merely in reaction to the Complaint’s unsolicited supplemental filing. To the extent that this evidence might be legitimate, it belies the Respondent’s initial argument that demonstrable fair use was not possible based on the short amount of time between its registration of the disputed domain name and the filing of the Complaint in this matter. Moreover, on that point, the Panel concurs with the Complainant that this argument lacks merit because registration of a domain name is not a technological prerequisite to develop, or even publish, website content, for example on a third-party platform such as a blog, even if only temporarily. The Respondent also proffered Oregon Articles of Incorporation dated December 1, 2020, for a nonprofit corporation named “Deception Prevention United Inc.” This document is presumably intended to establish business formation as demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name, but the relationship between the trade name for this entity and the disputed domain name remains a mystery. To wit, the registration data for the disputed domain name does not list “Deception Prevention United Inc.” as the registrant, nor does the disputed domain name share any commonalities with this trade name (such as <equifaxdeceptionprevention.press>) that might have differentiated it from the Complainant’s identical well- known EQUIFAX trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: 1. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or 2. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or 3. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or 4. by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. “[E]ven where a complainant may not be able to demonstrate the literal or verbatim application of one of the above scenarios, evidence demonstrating that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the complainant’s trademark would also satisfy the complainant’s burden.” Id. at Section 3.1. The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating a descriptive term) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (particularly where no conceivable good faith use could be made). WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.1.4. The Complainant has adduced evidence of recognition of the EQUIFAX trademark and cited several WIPO panel determinations in agreement that the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark is considered to be “well-known” or “highly-distinctive in every sense”; See e.g., Equifax Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Babacan Gunduz, WIPO Case No. D2021-3814; Equifax Inc. v. Balticsea LLC, Balcsea LLC, WIPO Case No. D2022-2497; Equifax Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. D2025-3658; Equifax Inc. v. Daiyu Shao, WIPO Case No. D2022-0913; page 8 Equifax Inc. v. Rakshita Mercantile Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2022-1947; Equifax Inc. v. Domain Controller, Yoyo Email / Yoyo.Email Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-0880. As such, and from the record in this case, it is clear to the Panel that the Respondent specifically registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark. Passively holding a domain name does not necessarily prevent the finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.3. This includes domain names that do not resolve to any website content as well as domain names that are parked with a “coming soon” message. Where a domain name is being passively held, as alleged in this case, bad faith registration and use exists based upon: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s taking active steps to conceal its identity, or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent’s registration agreement), and taking the above into account, the implausibility of any good faith use which the domain name may be put. See Id. See also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“A remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the Respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.”) To that end, the Panel has already acknowledged the multitude of prior panel determinations under the Policy cited by the Complainant concluding that the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark is “well-known”. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above and in view of the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel does not view the evidence proffered by the Respondent as satisfactory to establish actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name; it is equally likely to be fabricated post-hoc rationalization by the Respondent. And most importantly, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known EQUIFAX trademark, and it does not incorporate any other words to indicate that it is intended one day to resolve to a noncommercial news or commentary website about the Complainant. This strongly supports a presumption that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users into believing that they were endorsed or operated by the Complainant, in order to divert Internet users who were searching for the Complainant. In sum, the Policy is clear that while the Respondent has the right to publish news, commentary, or criticism about the Complainant, as is its alleged intent, the Respondent may not do so through a domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. This result is moreover noted to be consistent with US jurisprudence under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. See e.g., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney 113 F. Supp. 2d 915 (E.D. Va 2000) aff’d 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (Affirming bad faith registration and use of <peta.org> domain name despite alleged fair use parody for “People Eating Tasty Animals” website where “an internet user would not realize that they were not on an official PETA web site until after they had used PETA’s [tradem]ark to access the web page.”) The Panel therefore finds the third element of the Policy has been established. E. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Based on the analysis set forth above, the Panel declines the request to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking arguments set forth by the Respondent beyond the observation that none of its arguments have been acknowledged as an independent basis to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In particular, the Complainant’s decision to decline substantive amendments to its Complaint upon Registrar verification has no bearing on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking where, as here, the Complainant suspended the proceeding to seek further clarifying information from the Respondent. The suspension suggests due diligence by the Complainant upon learning of the identity and purported fair use of the Respondent. It does not suggest placement of the Respondent in an administrative proceeding without a factual basis. And, the Respondent at any time, could have provided its purported evidence of demonstrable website use preparations for the disputed domain name to either the Complainant, or to the Center, but chose not to until numerous unsolicited supplemental filings had been submitted. page 9 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 <equifax.press> be transferred to the Complainant. /Phillip V. Marano/ Phillip V. Marano Sole Panelist Date: May 7, 2026

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