Rugbyaustralia2027.com

The timeline behind rugbyaustralia2027.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 World Rugby Limited, and World Rugby Events DAC v. vincent pivard Case No. D2026-1245 1. The Parties The Complainants are World Rugby Limited, Ireland; and World Rugby Events DAC, Ireland, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is vincent pivard, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <rugbyaustralia2027.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2026. On March 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 24, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on March 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on March 30, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 31, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 20, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on April 1, 2026. On the same day, the Center sent an email regarding possible settlement to the Parties. On April 2, 2026, the Complainants requested the suspension of the proceedings. page 2 On the same day, the Center sent a notification to the Parties that the proceedings were suspended until May 2, 2026. On April 20, 2026, the Complainants requested reinstitution of the proceedings. On April 22, 2026, the Center informed the Parties that the new Response due was May 10, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on April 22, 2026, and on April 23, 2026. The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 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 Complainants are World Rugby Limited, the global governing body and federation for the sport of rugby union, and World Rugby Events DAC, the key operating entity within the World Rugby group, responsible for organizing, managing, and delivering major international rugby tournaments for World Rugby, including the Men’s Rugby World Cup and Women’s Rugby World Cup. Both are based in Ireland. The Complaint is based on several registered trademarks, including: - European Union Trade Mark No. 013460654, WORLD RUGBY (figurative), registered on April 14, 2015; - European Union Trade Mark No. 019210791, RWC MEN’S RUGBY WORLD CUP AUSTRALIA 2027 (figurative), registered on February 5, 2026; and - United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. UK00004227376, RWC MEN’S RUGBY WORLD CUP AUSTRALIA 2027 (figurative), registered on October 31, 2025. The Complainants have also used and promoted the designation “AUSTRALIA 2027” in connection with the Men’s Rugby World Cup 2027 tournament. The Complainants assert unregistered (common law) rights in AUSTRALIA 2027. In addition, the Complainants own numerous domain names reflecting the naming structure commonly used for its Rugby World Cup events, such as <rugbyworldcup2027.au>, <rugbyworldcup2027.com.au>, <australia2027.org>, and others. The Respondent is an individual who appears to be based in the United States. There is no evidence of any relationship or correspondence between the Parties prior to the dispute, and the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainants to use their trademarks or present itself as an official source for the Rugby World Cup Australia 2027 tournament. The disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a website (the “Respondent’s website”) that promotes the Rugby World Cup Australia 2027 tournament, presenting information about the tournament and purporting to offer tickets, accommodation, and travel guides. Several links on the Respondent’s website redirect Internet users to a ticketing platform (at “www.goaltickets.com”), which is also operated by the Respondent. 5. Discussion and Findings The Respondent has expressly and unequivocally consented on the record to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainants. The Panel notes that the case did not resolve through the “standard settlement process” facilitated by the Center. The Center’s correspondence of April 23, 2026, indicated that, absent a request for suspension, the proceeding would continue to decision. page 3 No further suspension request was submitted. The record shows that, while acknowledging the Respondent’s consent, the Complainants elected not to pursue further settlement steps and instead requested continuation of the administrative proceeding. Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the “standard settlement process” described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis). In some cases, despite such respondent consent, a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits. Scenarios in which a panel may find it appropriate to do so include (i) where the panel finds a broader interest in recording a substantive decision on the merits – notably recalling UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii) discussing a pattern of bad faith conduct, (ii) where while consenting to the requested remedy the respondent has expressly disclaimed any bad faith, (iii) where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision on the merits, (iv) where there is ambiguity as to the scope of the respondent’s consent, or (v) where the panel wishes to be certain that the complainant has shown that it possesses relevant trademark rights. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.10. Applying these principles to the present case, the Respondent has clearly and unambiguously consented to transfer. The Respondent stated, inter alia, “Respondent is prepared to execute the Standard Settlement Form immediately upon receipt and will cooperate with the Registrar to effect the transfer without delay. No conditions, payment, or further negotiation is requested”. The Parties did not conclude the standard settlement process, which may have been due to the absence of mutually completed formalities (e.g., the Standard Settlement Form) or other practical issues. There is no ambiguity as to the scope of the Respondent’s consent. The Respondent has not coupled its consent with a denial of bad faith, nor has either Party presented a compelling reason necessitating a recorded decision on the merits. The Panel is therefore satisfied that ordering transfer based on consent is appropriate. Consistent with the practice reflected WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10, the Panel gives effect to the Respondent’s consent for the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainants. Without making further substantive findings under the Policy, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainants. 6. 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 <rugbyaustralia2027.com> be transferred to the Complainants. /Jane Seager/ Jane Seager Sole Panelist Date: June 5, 2026

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