Equifaxsettlementllc.com

The timeline behind equifaxsettlementllc.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 Equifax Inc. v. SNUSME MORE, snusmemore.com Case No. D2026-1318 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (the “United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is SNUSME MORE, snusmemore.com, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <equifaxsettlementllc.com> 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 27, 2026. On March 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 30, 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 30, 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 April 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 23, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Jacob Changjie Chen 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 The Complainant, originally incorporated in the United States in 1913 with its predecessor company dating back to 1899, is a global data, analytics and technology company. The Complainant provides information solutions for businesses, governments and consumers, as well as human resources business process automation and outsourcing services for employers. As of December 31, 2025, the Complainant employed approximately 15,000 employees in 22 countries, and had operating revenue of over 6 billion USD. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations in over 50 jurisdictions around the world for EQUIFAX, which was first used in commerce and registered in 1975, including: - United States Trademark Registration No. 1027544, registered on December 16, 1975, in class 36; - United States Trademark Registration No. 1045574, registered on August 3, 1976, in class 35; and - United States Trademark Registration No. 1644585, registered on May 14, 1991, in class 35, 36, and 42. The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <equifax.com> created on February 21, 1995, and has been using it in connection with its primary website. The disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2026, and is resolving to a “EQUIFA SETTLEMENT LLC” website displaying the EQUIFAX trademark and providing banking service. 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 EQUIFAX trademark as the disputed domain name contains the EQUIFAX trademark in its entirety, while the inclusion of the word “settlement” and “llc” (abbreviation for “limited liability company”) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the EQUIFAX trademark in any manner. By using the disputed domain name in connection with a website for a bank and by repeatedly using the EQUIFAX trademark and logo, the Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. Besides, a security vendor has reported that the disputed domain name is associated with malicious activities. The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Because the disputed domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant, the Respondent’s actions suggest opportunistic bad faith in violation of the Policy. The Respondent is clearly creating a likelihood of confusion with the EQUIFAX trademark, which constitutes bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the 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 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 Panel finds the mark is 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 “settlement” and “llc” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. 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 disputed domain name is using the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark to offer banking services, which is very likely to confuse Internet users as to the source of services provided through the website. The Respondent is trying to falsely suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant when actually the Respondent has been not authorized nor permitted to do so. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is reported of associating with malicious activities, which in the view of the Panel implies a risk of phishing or other types of fraud activities. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate (passing off) and illegal activity (phishing, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark, and resolves to a website hosted by a “EQUIFA SETTLEMENT LLC” to provide banking services. In view of the reputation of the EQUIFAX trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent most likely knew of the EQUIFAX trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In absence of any rights or legitimate interests, registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the distinctive EQUIFAX trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith, and makes it appropriate for the Panel to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. By choosing the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark in the disputed domain name, the Respondent is deliberately attempting to exploit reputation of the Complainant and misrepresent itself as being affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name shows that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent did not rebut the malicious activity alleged by the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as phishing or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. 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. 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 <equifaxsettlementllc.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Jacob Changjie Chen/ Jacob Changjie Chen Sole Panelist Date: May 15, 2026

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