Trufragranceandbeauty.org

The timeline behind trufragranceandbeauty.org

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 Tru Fragrance & Beauty LLC. v. Malka Clow Case No. D2026-1229 1. The Parties Complainant is Tru Fragrance & Beauty LLC., United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., United States. Respondent is Malka Clow, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <trufragranceandbeauty.org> 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 22, 2026. On March 23, 2026 and April 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by emails to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 7, 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 / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 7, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 10, 2026. 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 Respondent 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. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 4, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 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 Complainant has designed, produced and marketed perfumes and cosmetics for retailers and consumers since 1969. Since 2012, Complainant has used the trademarks TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY (Design), TRU FRAGRANCE + BEAUTY, and TRU FRAGRANCE in the United States, in which it asserts common law rights, and incorporates the same into its company name and website “www.trufragrance.com”, as well as other domain names that contain the term “tru”. Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration in the United States (the “TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks”) as follows: Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY (Design) United States 3 4,540,349 May 27, 2014 The disputed domain name was registered August 19, 2025. At some time prior to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website exclusively displaying images of Complainant’s goods or counterfeits of Complainant’s goods, many of which are protected by other trademarks registered and owned by Complainant, and links to Complainant’s Amazon store. Respondent’s website also includes a statement that the disputed domain name participates in an Amazon program that pays fees for advertising and linking to Amazon. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to a website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks, as evidenced herein and that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks because the disputed domain name includes the entirety of the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks and merely adds the term “and”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Complainant contends that Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has not applied for or registered any of the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks, only recently registered the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks or to apply for the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to falsely hold itself out, through a website exclusively displaying images of Complainant’s goods or counterfeits of Complainant’s goods for financial gain, as being associated with Complainant, there causing confusion. The disputed domain name is therefore not a bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent and does not result in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends the disputed domain name was registered and was used in bad faith because Respondent must have been aware of the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and by using the disputed domain name, and creating a likelihood of confusion with the TRU FRAGRANCE BEAUTY Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s goods, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract visitors to its website or location for commercial gain. Complainant further notes Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide its identity is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 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 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. 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 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here “and” 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the composition of a domain name which carries a risk of implied affiliation coupled with the use of a domain name for passing itself off as Complainant for financial gain can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5.1 and 2.13.1. Furthermore, Panels have held that a “[r]espondent’s use of the disputed domain name on a website that uses the [c]omplainant’s trademark to then redirect users to the Amazon website where the [r]espondent receives a commission for such referral, does not amount to bona fide offering of goods or services.” page 4 Samyang Foods Inc. v. Wout van Lesdonk, WIPO Case No. D2024-5068. A disclaimer on such a website does not alter the Panel’s finding on this element. 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 the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. Furthermore, Respondent’s operation of a website advertising goods while passing itself off as Complainant for financial gain via links to a third party sale website illustrates both a disruption to the business of Complainant and an intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for taking an unfair advantage of a risk of implied affiliation or passing itself off as Complainant for financial gain constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <trufragranceandbeauty.org> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: May 22, 2026

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