Driftco.ltd

The timeline behind driftco.ltd

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 Scentbird Inc. v. Louis B Case No. D2026-1637 1. The Parties The Complainant is Scentbird Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cole-Frieman & Mallon, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Louis B, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <driftco.ltd> 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 April 16, 2026. On April 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 17, 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, Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 20, 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 amended Complaint on April 24, 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 April 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on May 7, 2026. The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The following facts, relevant for this case, are undisputed. The Complainant operates a United States based subscription service for designer fragrances, operating at the domain name <scentbird.com>. The Complainant offers over 1,000 perfumes and colognes. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <drift.co>, which it uses in connection with its primary website. Both via the website to which the domain name <scentbird.com> resolves and the website to which the domain name <drift.co> resolves, the Complainant offers air care products, including car fresheners. The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations, including trademark registration including the element “drift”, which include the United States registration for the word mark DRIFT, with registration number 7931659, applied on October 16, 2023, and registered September 2, 2025, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, and 35, as well the United States registration for the DRIFT(stylized), with registration number 6321131, applied on August 24, 2020, and registered April 13, 2021, for goods in class 5. The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2025 and, at the time of filing of the Complaint and at the time of rendering this decision, resolved to an online storefront that offers car and home fragrances and that uses the name DRIFT in a stylization which resembles the stylization of the trademark registered by the Complainant. The Terms of Service of that online storefront, mentions in section 24 (contact information): “Our contact information is posted below: [INSERT TRADING NAME] [[...]@gmail.com (The Respondent’s email address disclosed by the Registrar)] [INSERT BUSINESS ADDRESS] [INSERT BUSINESS PHONE NUMBER] [INSERT BUSINESS REGISTRATION NUMBER] [INSERT VAT NUMBER]” 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 the following. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves, displays the DRIFT brand and DRIFT branded products and provides certain contact details, including a gmail.com address and a street address in the Philippines. The website also copies the Complainant’s graphics, layout, and written content, which are subject to copyright, further reinforcing the impersonation of the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 DRIFT marks in any manner, and the Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with the Complainant. The Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests because the Respondent’s use of Complainant’s intellectual property clearly “misleadingly diverts consumers” under the doctrine of “initial interest confusion”. page 3 The Respondent has no right to the DRIFT marks. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates a significant risk that the public will wrongfully presume that the Complainant and the Respondent are the same company. The Respondent’s deliberate misuse of the disputed domain name for impersonation and trademark and copyright infringement is clear evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the second and third elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent contends the following which is relevant to the outcome of the decision. The disputed domain name was registered and has been actively used for a bona fide offering of goods and services since its acquisition. The Respondent’s products are fundamentally distinct from any potentially overlapping product lines of the Complainant. The Respondent’s business is focused on a premium, highly differentiated product philosophy for car cabin accessories. Internal documents confirm the brand’s objective is to “reject anything that sounds cheap, vague, or mass-market,” focusing instead on “Product craftsmanship and detail-based messaging,” which includes emphasis on real wood, careful scent direction, and elegant, non-cluttered form factors. The marketing pillar centers on “Premium transformation messaging,” reframing the purchase as a “cabin upgrade” and “refined interior detail”. This distinct, premium, and non-generic product line further establishes the Respondent's legitimate interest in the descriptive domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on July 17, 2025. On August 6, 2025, it was immediately integrated and designated as the primary domain name for the Respondent’s operating e-commerce store. This demonstrates commercial intent and actual preparation for use. The Respondent (or its associated entity, Sphere Studio Digital Marketing Services, which operates the DRIFT brand) is commonly known by the disputed domain name, which is used for the Respondent’s primary business operations and professional correspondence, [...]@driftco.ltd. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is tied to the generic/descriptive meaning of “drift ” and “co ” and was not targeted at the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s business is a Philippine-based e-commerce and semi-manufacturing enterprise with a mission and operations exclusively focused on the local Philippine market. The company’s vision and core direction state its goal is to build “world-class success can be built right here in the Philippines,” and its logistics use local couriers for nationwide fulfillment. The Respondent has no current plans or demonstrable intent to operate globally or enter the Complainants international market. This absence of extra-territorial intent strongly negates any allegation of bad faith registration or use targeted at an international trademark holder. The registration of the disputed domain name preceded any demonstrable knowledge of or connection to the Complainant’s specific trademark rights. The disputed domain name was chosen for its descriptive or generic business-related value. The Respondent’s immediate action to use the disputed domain name for a business email address and set it as the primary Shopify domain name demonstrates an intent for legitimate commercial use from the beginning, not an intent to disrupt or capitalize on the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name has never been offered for sale to the Complainant or a competitor for profit, nor was it registered to block the Complainant from registering its mark. page 4 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 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, “co”, 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 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 rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing. However, the Panel finds the Respondent’s contentions, which give rise to the Panel’s impression that these were drafted by artificial intelligence and do not address most of the Complainant’s contentions, not convincing. Whilst it could in theory be possible that a party in the Philippines would be legitimately offering products similar to those of the Complainant under an identical name, the facts of the matter and the overall impression of the Panel, do not confirm the Respondent operating a legitimate website. The Panel specifically takes into account use of DRIFT by the Respondent in a stylization that some extremely close to the stylized mark used and registered by the Complainant. Also, the “contact information” in section 24 of the Terms of Service of the Respondent’s online storefront confirms this finding. The Panel acknowledges that “drift” is a dictionary term in English which means to move slowly, aimlessly, or gradually. However, the composition of the disputed domain name signals the Respondent’s intention to mimic the Complainant’s domain name <drift.co>, and to trade off the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent has furthermore not rebutted that this online storefront has copied the Complainant’s graphics, layout, and written content and thus attempts to pass off the Complainant. As such the Respondent and has not come forward with sufficient relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 5 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here as claimed passing off, 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. The Panel refers to its specific considerations under 6.B. above, which clearly confirm that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel also considers that it is beyond co- incidental that, whilst the Complainant is operating it e-commerce activities selling DRIFT products using the domain name <drift.co>, that the Respondent is also selling similar products under the identical name using a nearly identical stylization is using the disputed domain name, which reflects the “.co” Top-Level Domain from the Complainant’s domain name, in the string of the disputed domain name. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed passing off, 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 thus 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 <driftco.ltd> be transferred to the Complainant. /Willem J. H. Leppink/ Willem J. H. Leppink Sole Panelist Date: May 14, 2026

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