Pixiv.app

The timeline behind pixiv.app

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 pixiv Inc. v. Aber Sheeran, GFW Case No. D2026-1084 1. The Parties The Complainant is pixiv Inc., Japan, represented internally. The Respondent is Aber Sheeran, GFW, China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pixiv.app> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2026. On March 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 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 (Privacy Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 16, 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 16, 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 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 6, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 28, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev 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 The Complainant operates the Pixiv online art community platform, where people exhibit their illustrations, manga, and novels and get feedback via a rating system and user comments. Pixiv was launched in 2007 and is accessible in different languages through the domain names <pixiv.com> and <pixiv.net>. As of December 2025, the platform has over 119 million registered users from various countries and hosts over 115 million artworks. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for PIXIV in different jurisdictions (the “PIXIV trademark”), including the following representative registrations: − the Japanese trademark with registration No. 5455108, registered on December 2, 2011 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 41, 42, and 45; − the International trademark with registration No. 1150838, registered on September 19, 2012 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 41, 42, and 45; and − the Chinese trademark with registration No. 8559817, registered on April 14, 2014 for services in International Class 42. The disputed domain name was registered on May 6, 2018. It resolves to a website displaying pornographic content. The Respondent submits that it acquired the disputed domain name from a previous registrant, but does not specify when this has happened. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its PIXIV trademark, because it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it was registered nine years after the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent is not commonly known under it. According to the Complainant, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s PIXIV trademark, which is a coined word with no dictionary meaning that was created by the Complainant in 2007 specifically for its online platform and is the core brand of its business. The Complainant maintains that the PIXIV trademark has acquired substantial distinctiveness and recognition in the global creative community, particularly in the digital art, manga, and illustration sectors as a result of its use by the Complainant for over 18 years, during which time the Complainant’s platform has amassed over 119 million registered users making over 600 million monthly visits. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to it, the Respondent must have chosen the disputed domain name with the intent to target the Complainant’s brand and exploit its reputation. The Complainant notes that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert traffic and distribute unauthorised and explicit adult content for commercial gain. The Complainant notes that prior UDRP panels have consistently held that the unauthorised association of a famous trademark with explicit adult content is evidence of bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent states that it is an individual developer who has used the disputed domain name for several years as part of independent personal projects. The Respondent maintains that it acquired the disputed domain name from a previous holder for a significant purchase price, and further secured long-term rights by paying for approximately ten years of registration in advance. According to it, this reflects a genuine investment and intention to develop independent projects, rather than any intent to exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent denies that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. It states that for a substantial period following acquisition, the disputed domain name was used as a general-purpose tools website, unrelated to the Complainant or its business. The Respondent adds that only later, due to a shift in personal interests, the website at the disputed domain name was repurposed to host manga-related content, which change reflects the natural evolution of a personal project over time. The Respondent maintains that the disputed domain name was not used with the intention of targeting the Complainant or its trademark, that it has never claimed affiliation with the Complainant, used the Complainant’s logo, branding, or interface, attempted to impersonate the Complainant, or attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent adds that the disputed domain name is not used to mislead users, as the website at the disputed domain name does not imitate the Complainant, does not suggest official affiliation, and operates independently. 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. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the PIXIV trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The dominating word element of the PIXIV trademark is entirely reproduced within the disputed domain name without any other elements. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the PIXIV trademark 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 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. page 4 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 disputed domain name identically reproduces the dominating word element of the Complainant’s PIXIV trademark, which has been extensively used for its popular online art platform used by millions of Internet users globally. This creates a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The disputed domain name has been used for a website displaying pornographic illustrations and may mislead visitors to regard it as part of the Complainant’s online platform. The Respondent has not denied its knowledge of the Complainant and has not provided sufficient explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name and how it relates to the content of the associated website, nor any evidence to support any past or anticipated future legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Considering the above, the Panel accepts as more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name targeting the Complainant’s PIXIV trademark in an attempt for commercial gain to attract and mislead Internet users that its website is associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Such conduct cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. 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. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s longstanding and coined trademark, and is being used to display pornographic, animated content that Internet users may readily associate with animated content displayed by the Complainant. As discussed in Section 6.B. on rights or legitimate interests, it appears more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting its PIXIV trademark to distribute pornographic content for commercial gain. This supports a conclusion that the Respondent has acted in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the 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 <pixiv.app> be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: April 24, 2026

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