Coachhubdigital.info

The timeline behind coachhubdigital.info

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 CoachHub GmbH v. BRENNA STALLINGS Case No. D2026-1663 1. The Parties The Complainant is CoachHub GmbH, Germany, represented by JBViniol, Germany. The Respondent is BRENNA STALLINGS, United States of America (“U.S.”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <coachhubdigital.info> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2026. On April 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 19, 2026. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a global talent development platform offering digital coaching services in relation to a variety of different subjects via its digital platform “www.coachhub.com”. Founded in 2018 with a principal place of business in Berlin, Germany, the Complainant has received over USD 330 million in funding. The Complainant has entities in the U.S., Germany, Singapore, United Kingdom, France, Australia, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Japan, and Canada. The Complainant employs over 200 staff across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia, and works with more than 3,500 business coaches in 90 countries. The Complainant offers digital coaching services to over 1,000 business clients worldwide with on-the- ground teams supporting the company’s roster of brands including, Booking.com, Amazon, Meliá Hotels, Thyssenkrupp, Toyota, CEMEX, Virgin Atlantic, Ford, Generali, B. Braun, and Schneider Electric. The Complainant owns the trademark COACHHUB registered, inter alia, as international trademark no 018223054 since January 28, 2021, for business management assistance services. The disputed domain name registered on March 8, 2026, does not point to an active website but has been used as part of a fraudulent email scheme. 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 registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior mark, wholly incorporating it and adding only the dictionary word “digital” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” none of which prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active site, has been used as part of an email phishing scheme which is registration and use in bad faith per se. 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. page 3 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 “digital” 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 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 has been used as part of an email phishing scheme. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as part of an email phishing scheme. 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. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing, 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 <coachhubdigital.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dawn Osborne/ Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2026

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