Marqvisionenforcement.com

The timeline behind marqvisionenforcement.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 Marq Vision Inc. v. Balen Ciaga Case No. D2026-1087 1. The Parties The Complainant is Marq Vision Inc., United States of America, internally represented. The Respondent is Balen Ciaga, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marqvisionenforcement.com> is registered with Dynadot 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 19, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY (DT), Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 20, 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 23, 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Federica Togo as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it is a technology company offering an intellectual property enforcement platform that leverages artificial intelligence to combat online counterfeiting and brand infringement globally. The Complainant is the registered owner of trademarks for MARQVISION in the Republic of Korea, e.g. Trademark Registration No. 4017306270000 (fig.), registered on May 11, 2022, for services in class 35. It uses the domain name <marqvision.com> for its official website. The disputed domain name was registered on November 8, 2025. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant proves that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, because the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and merely adds the descriptive term “enforcement” along with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; there is no relationship or affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent that might give rise to any license, permission, or other right by which the Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s marks; the disputed domain name was registered in a manner that misleadingly suggests affiliation with the Complainant. Specifically, it redirects Internet users to the Complainant’s official website, such unauthorized redirection demonstrates no indication of independent or legitimate use by the Respondent. The registration of a domain name that is strictly identical to the MARQVISION mark demonstrates the Respondent’s intent to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill and create a misleading impression of affiliation for commercial or disruptive purposes. Such an exact reproduction does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, given the renowned and distinctive nature of the MARQVISION trademark and the Complainant’s significant international prominence, it is evident that at the time of registration, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks. The addition of the word “enforcement” directly references the Complainant’s core services (e.g., IP enforcement). By combining the exact trademark with a term so closely associated with the Complainant’s business, the Respondent deliberately amplifies the false impression that the disputed domain name is an official service portal or department of the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is deliberately configured to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s official website, “www.marqvision.com”. page 3 This configuration explicitly proves that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark and corporate identity at the time of registration, and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill. Furthermore, by retaining control over the disputed domain name, the Respondent poses a continuous threat of altering the destination for unauthorized activities, such as phishing or commercial disruption, thereby posing substantial risks to the Complainant and the public. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that each disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled: (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. The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. In addition, the Panel finds that the mark MARQVISION is entirely included and therefore recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “enforcement”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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. page 4 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. Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered relevant mark and company name (i.e., MARQVISION) and the term “enforcement”, which clearly refers to the Complainant’s core business (i.e., intellectual property enforcement), tending to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. This is also confirmed by the content of the website to which the disputed domain name redirects (i.e., to the Complainant’s official website). The composition of the disputed domain name directly targeting the Complainant’s field of activity, enhances the false impression that the disputed domain name is somehow officially related to the Complainant and promoting the Complainant’s business. Such composition of the disputed domain name cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that -- as explained above -- it results from the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website at the domain name <marqvision.com>. Panels have found that a respondent redirecting a domain name to the complainant’s website can establish bad faith insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. This Panel shares this view in the present case. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <marqvisionenforcement.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Federica Togo/ Federica Togo Sole Panelist Date: May 15, 2026

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