Asksquire.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind asksquire.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Squire Technologies, Inc. v. Jorge Vieira, PLANETA100FIM Unipessoal Lda, Jorge Vieira, Squire, and Vishwjeet Jadeja, AtoZ Lead Stats Case No. D2026-1176 1. The Parties The Complainant is Squire Technologies, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by 101domain.com, United States. The Respondents are Jorge Vieira, PLANETA100FIM Unipessoal Lda, Portugal, Jorge Vieira, Squire, United States and Vishwjeet Jadeja, AtoZ Lead Stats, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <asksquire.com> and <squirecx.com> are registered with Metaregistrar BV. The disputed domain name <get-squire.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. The disputed domain name <squire-app.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (collectively, the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 18, 2026. On March 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 20, 2026 and March 23, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (The RDAP server redacted the value / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 23, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 3, 2026. page 2 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 30, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on April 27, 2026 by the Respondent Jorge Vieira. The Respondent Jorge Vieira sent email communications to the Center on April 28, 2026 and April 29, 2026. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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 was founded in 2015 and is a software company providing a business management system for barbers and shop owners. The Complainant has maintained an online presence through the use of its primary domain name <getsquire.com> since 2014. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations, including the United States trademark SQUIRE (No. 5,169,439, registered on March 28, 2017). The disputed domain names were registered between March 2025 and February 2026. The disputed domain name <get-squire.com> resolves to a website promoting technical software solutions for e- commerce businesses under the SQUIRE brand. The other three disputed domain names all redirect to <get-squire.com>. 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 names. B. Respondents The Respondent Jorge Vieira filed a Response on April 27, 2026. The Respondent indicated that he agrees to transfer all disputed domain names to the Complainant, having independently ceased operations of the associated business. The Respondent also contends that: - It registered the domain name <get-squire.com> in March 2025 and the remaining disputed domain domains in early 2026 in connection with “Squire”, (the Respondent’s product) an AI-powered customer support tool developed for Shopify e-commerce merchants. - The Respondent’s product operated in a completely different market from the Complainant's barbershop management software. Squire served e-commerce merchants with AI-driven customer support automation. The Complainant serves barbers and barbershop owners with booking and payment processing software. There is no meaningful overlap in customer base, product functionality, or industry. page 3 - The term “squire” is a common English term. - The Complainant’s argument that the registrant information for the domain names <asksquire.com> and <squirecx.com> represents a fraudulent alias created by the Respondent to conceal its identity, is false. These domain names were registered through a done-for-you domain provisioning service provided by Instantly.ai, a widely used cold email infrastructure platform. - The website hosted at <get-squire.com> was a standard software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) landing page with a product description, pricing tiers, and a sign-up form – the same structure used by virtually every SaaS product on the Internet. Having a sign-up page is not evidence of phishing. - The Respondent owns all four disputed domain names. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not object to the Complainant’s request, rather the Respondent Jorge Vieira confirmed that all four disputed domain names were subject to common control. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, beyond the Respondent’s confirmation, the Panel also notes that the disputed domain names <asksquire.com> and <squirecx.com> were registered on the same day and, together with the disputed domain name <squire-app.com>, all redirect to the fourth disputed domain name <get- squire.com>. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. B. Consent to Remedy The Panel notes that the Complainant has provided evidence of trademark rights in SQUIRE, and contends that it has satisfied the second and third elements. The Respondent objected to the Complainant’s second and third element contentions as unfounded and false. Further, the Respondent consents to a transfer of the disputed domain names without, however, admitting to any “finding of fraud, phishing, credential harvesting, fabricated identity, typosquatting, disruption, tarnishment, bad-faith registration, or bad-faith use”. The Panel accordingly finds there is no need for the Panel to enter into a discussion on the merits of this case. page 4 Having reviewed the case file, the Panel orders transfer solely on the basis of the Respondent’s consent but notes the Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain names is not an admission of its bad faith. 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 names <asksquire.com>, <get-squire.com>, <squire-app.com>, and <squirecx.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: May 20, 2026

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