Theordinarypakistan.store

The timeline behind theordinarypakistan.store

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 Deciem Beauty Group Inc. v. muhammad awais Case No. D2026-1168 1. The Parties The Complainant is Deciem Beauty Group Inc., Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada. The Respondent is muhammad awais, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <theordinarypakistan.store> 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 March 18, 2026. On March 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 18, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 19, 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 19, 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 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 Eva Fiammenghi 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 is Deciem Beauty Group Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of Canada and headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Complainant is a global skincare and beauty company specializing in functional beauty products. Founded in 2013, the Complainant operates internationally and is best known for its trademark THE ORDINARY, which offers a range of skincare products focused on ingredient transparency and affordable pricing. The Complainant’s products are sold in numerous countries worldwide through online platforms and authorized retailers. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark THE ORDINARY in jurisdictions around the world. These registrations cover, inter alia, cosmetics, skincare products, and related retail and beauty consultation services. Among these registrations are the following: - International trademark THE ORDINARY, Registration No. 1658977, registered on March 15, 2022, covering goods in Class 3, designating among others Pakistan; - European Union trademark THE ORDINARY, Registration No. 015761182, registered on December 8, 2016, covering goods in Class 3; - Canadian trademark THE ORDINARY, Registration No. TMA1017744, registered on March 20, 2019, covering services in Classes 35 and 44. The Complainant operates its official website at the domain name <theordinary.com>, which it uses to promote and sell its products globally. The disputed domain name <theordinarypakistan.store> was registered on October 31, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, and during these proceedings, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. The record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a Shopify page stating that the store does not exist. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for the transfer of the disputed domain name. First, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark THE ORDINARY. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark THE ORDINARY in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the addition of the geographic term “pakistan” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.store” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and, on the contrary, reinforces the likelihood that Internet users would believe the disputed domain name to be associated with an official or authorized online store of the Complainant in Pakistan. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the THE ORDINARY trademark in any manner, including as part of a domain name. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not made any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of page 3 the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name has remained inactive and resolves to a page indicating that the store does not exist, which, in the Complainant’s view, does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. Third, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that, given the worldwide reputation and extensive use of the THE ORDINARY trademark, including in Pakistan, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the composition of the disputed domain name, which combines the Complainant’s trademark with a country name and the “.store” gTLD, indicates an intent to create a misleading association with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Complainant further argues that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. On the basis of the above, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed a complainant must prove that: (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. 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. The Complainant relies on its registered trademark THE ORDINARY, which is protected in multiple jurisdictions, including Pakistan, the European Union, and Canada. The entirety of the mark is reproduced 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, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, the geographic term “pakistan”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that 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. page 4 The Panel further notes that the addition of the gTLD “.store” is typically disregarded for the purposes of the first element assessment. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1 . The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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 Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its THE ORDINARY trademark in any manner, including as part of a domain name. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the disputed domain name has remained inactive and resolves to a Shopify page indicating that the store does not exist. Panels have consistently held that such inactivity, in the absence of other supporting circumstances, does not confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent in such circumstances. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, 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 finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel first notes that the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY is distinctive and has been widely used internationally well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant holds registered trademark rights in multiple jurisdictions, including Pakistan, where the Respondent is located. In light of the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the geographic term “pakistan” and the “.store” gTLD, the Panel finds it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration. page 5 The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, as it suggests an official or authorized online store of the Complainant, targeting costumers in Pakistan. Such composition supports a finding that the disputed domain name was registered with the intent to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark. Although the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website and instead displays a Shopify page indicating that the store does not exist, panels have consistently held that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. In assessing bad faith in cases of passive holding, panels consider the totality of the circumstances, including the distinctiveness and reputation of the complainant’s trademark, the failure of the respondent to submit a response or provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use of the disputed domain name. In the present case, the Respondent has not submitted any Response and has provided no explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name. Considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s mark and the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that there is no plausible good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put without creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the composition of the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s apparent knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, the lack of any rights or legitimate interests, and the passive holding of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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 <theordinarypakistan.store> be transferred to the Complainant. /Eva Fiammenghi/ Eva Fiammenghi Sole Panelist Date: May 1, 2026

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