Slideshare.pro, Slidesharetool.com

The timeline behind slideshare.pro

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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Scribd, Inc. v. Suman Naskar and Sumayyah IDREES Case No. D2026-1608 1. The Parties The Complainant is Scribd, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by IPLA, LLP, United States. The Respondents are Suman Naskar, Ind ia, and Sumayyah IDREES, Pakistan. 2. Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <slideshare.pro> and <slidesharetool.com> are registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2026. On April 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 16, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy elf) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 17, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with dif f erent underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in f act the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 22, 2026. One of the Respondents sent two email communications to the Center on April 22, 2026, and the Complainant requested a suspension of the proceedings on the same day. The proceedings were suspended until May 22, 2026, and were reinstituted on June 2, 2026, upon the Complainant’s request. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any f o rmal response. The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on July 15, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 states: 1. It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in San Francisco, Calif ornia, United States; 2. It is the owner of the SLIDESHARE trademark (the “SLIDESHARE Marks”) in different jurisdictions, by virtue of the assignment of trademark rights, executed in March 2024, by and between Slideshare, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acting as an assignor and the Complainant acting as an assignee; 3. It o wns multiple trademark registrations for the SLIDESHARE Marks worldwide f or use in connection with a variety of reporting computer, electronic and sof tware related goods and services; 4. The SLIDESHARE trademark was registered in the United States, on September 25,2012, under the number 4,212,895 in International Classes 9, 35 and 42, with a f irst use in commerce date of October 4, 2006. 5. The SLIDESHARE Marks are also registered in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, European Union, India, Mexico and United Kingdom. 6. The disputed domain name <slideshare.pro> was registered on July 24, 2025, and the disputed domain name <slidesharetool.com> on May 5, 2025. At the time of f iling of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to websites which referenced the Complainant and purportedly of f ered services to download the Complainant’s products. The website at the disputed domain name <slideshare.pro> also displayed the Complainant’s old hand holding logo and stated at the bottom to be “the of f icial SlideShare Downloader tool.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain names. The Complainant contends that: 1. The Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have continuously used, and owned trademark registrations for, the SLID ESHARE Marks in connection with its computer software goods and services since at least as early as 2006; 2. It owns and operates the domain name <slideshare.net>, created April 4, 2006; page 3 3. The disputed domain names are identical or conf usingly similar to the SLIDESHARE Marks and domain name <slideshare.net>; 4. The disputed domain names were registered well after the first use dates and/or trademark registration dates of the SLID ESHARE Marks and after the Complainant’s website had been registered and operational; 5. The disputed domain name <slideshare.pro> uses the Complainant’s old hand holding logo to promote the ability to download copyrighted content from the Complainant’s platform, which is clear evidence of bad f aith; and 6. The disputed domain name <slidesharetool.com> also unduly uses the old hand holding logo, as well as advertises “SlideShare Downloader has a simple interface that provides open access to download huge amounts of content f rom Slide Share [...]”. B. Respondents The Respondents did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On April 22, 2026, as ref erenced above in section 3, the registrant of the disputed domain name <slideshare.pro> consented to the transfer of that domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probability that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad f aith. Given that the Respondents did not file a f ormal response to the Complaint f iled by the Complainant, the Panel proceeds in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 5(f) and 15 of the Rules; that is, the Panel will decide the dispute based on the statements and documents submitted, and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law it deems applicable. Accordingly, since the Respondents did not dispute the Complainant’s allegations, this Panel accepts as true the Complainant's reasonable assertions, and, consequently, certain inf erences may be drawn theref rom. 6.1. Preliminary Matter – Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The Complainant requested consolidation of the disputes, given that the Complaint was f iled against two dif f erent registrants within a single proceeding, and based its request on the f ollowing: 1. The two disputed domain names are under common control, so consolidation would be f air and equitable f or the Parties, making the proceeding more ef f icient; 2. Both registrants use gmail.com email addresses; 3. The disputed domain names were registered within a relatively short period of time, specif ically on May 5, 2025, and July 24, 2025, with the same Registrar, which supports the conclusion that they f orm part of a coordinated registration campaign; 4. The composition of the disputed domain names as well as their similarities in use, the unif orm structure of the WhoIs data, and the temporal proximity of the registrations together support the inf erence that they were registered and are managed by the same person or by a coordinated group acting in concert; and page 4 5. It is highly likely that the registrants are in f act the same person or are acting under common control. Processing multiple separate complaints would result in unnecessary duplication of time, effort, and costs for the Complainant. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) sets out certain considerations that should be taken into account when a complaint has been f iled against multiple registrants. These include, among others: (i) Whether the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; (ii) Whether consolidation would be f air and equitable to all parties; (iii) The identity(ies) of the registrants, including any pseudonyms; (iv) The registrants’ contact inf ormation, including email address(es), postal address(es), or telephone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities; (v) The relevant IP addresses, name servers, or web hosting(s); (vi) The content or design of the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names; and/or (vii) The nature of the trademarks at issue. Based on the arguments presented, the evidence submitted, the Respondents’ lack of objection, and the similarities in use of the disputed domain names, pursuant to the powers conferred under paragraph 10(e) o f the Rules, the Panel is empowered to decide on a party’s request for consolidation of multiple domain name d is p utes . Accordingly, in keeping with the Policy and the Rules, the request for consolidation of the multiple domain name disputes is granted, and both Respondents will hereafter be referred to in this Decision as the “Respondent”. 6.2. Substantive Matters A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 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 mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain name <slidesharetool.com> is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy, and <slideshare.pro> is identical thereto. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The addition of the term “tool” in the disputed domain name <slidesharetool.com> does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domains are viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such are disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Considering that the disputed domain names reproduce the trademark SLIDESHARE in its entirety, the Panel f inds the f irst 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 a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task page 5 of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied with the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent has neither used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor f or a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. The Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s SLID ESHARE trademark, coupled with the use to which they have been put, indicates the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant as to the origin or af f iliation of the respective websites . The Complainant is not aware of any trademark rights or other rights that the Respondent has relating to the SLIDESHARE Marks, nor has the Complainant ever authorized the Respondent to use its SLIDESHARE Marks. As such, in the Panel’s view, the disputed domain names were created with the intention to mislead Internet users into believing that there is a connection or association with the Complainant. The Panel f inds 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 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad f aith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that: 1. The Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Complainant and its activities and business operations under the SLID ESHARE Marks, at the time of registering the disputed domain names; 2. The disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SLIDESHARE trademark; 3. The Complainant’s SLIDESHARE trademark and domain names significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain names; 4. The Complainant has not granted an authorization, consent or license to the Respondent to use the SLIDESHARE mark, as part of the disputed domain names; 5. The disputed domain names were registered well af ter the f irst use dates and/or trademark registrations dates of the Complainant SLIDESHARE trademark and af ter the Complainant’s website was registered and operational; and page 6 6. The websites for the disputed domain names unduly promote the ability to download copyrighted content from the Complainant’s platform without subscribing to the Complainant’s services; the website at the disputed domain name <slideshare.pro> also displayed the Complainant’s old hand holding logo and stated at the bottom to be “the of f icial SlideShare Downloader tool.” Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <slideshare.pro> and <slidesharetool.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Martin Michaus-Romero/ Martin Michaus-Romero Sole Panelist Date: July 29, 2026

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