Coachhubglobal.info

The timeline behind coachhubglobal.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. CYNTHIA MORRIS Case No. D2026-1665 1. The Parties The Complainant is CoachHub GmbH, Germany, represented by JBViniol, Germany. The Respondent is CYNTHIA MORRIS, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <coachhubglobal.info> (the “Domain Name”), 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 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 sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 23, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. 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 20, 2026. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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 German company, established in 2018, offering a variety of talent development and digital coaching services. The Complainant offers its services to over 1,000 business clients worldwide and works with over 3,500 specific coaches. The Complainant offers its services under the COACHHUB mark and maintains its official website at the domain name <coachhub.com>. The Complainant has held trademark registrations for the word COACHHUB (the “COACHHUB Mark”) in numerous jurisdictions since as early as 2019, including a United States trademark registration for the COACHHUB mark, being registration number 6,368,150, registered June 1, 2021, for services in classes 35 and 41. The Domain Name was registered on March 13, 2026. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. However, the Complaint contains evidence from third parties who have received emails from the Respondent using the email address “[...]@coachhubglobal.info” to impersonate the Complainant and contact third parties to demand payment of false invoices. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: a) It is the owner of the COACHHUB Mark, having registered the COACHHUB Mark in numerous jurisdictions including the United States. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the COACHHUB Mark as it reproduces the COACHHUB Mark in its entirety, and adds the additional term “global” (along with the “.info” generic Top-Level Domain). b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the COACHHUB Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the COACHHUB Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate non-commercial purpose. Rather, the Domain Name is used for fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant, which does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Domain Name also resolves to an inactive website. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name is being used for emails that impersonate the Complainant in order to perpetuate fraud. 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 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 Domain Name. Accordingly, the 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, “global”, 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 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: • Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. • The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. • The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.4. • The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. However, the Complaint contains evidence of the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in connection with a fraudulent email scheme where it sends emails passing itself off as the Complainant to third parties, demanding payments from those third parties to its account based on fake invoices. This use is often described as phishing. Panels have held that the use of a page 4 domain name for illegitimate activity such as phishing and impersonation/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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed to be phishing and impersonation/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 Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Domain Name has been used to create an email account where the Respondent sends fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant in order to commit fraud by demanding payments from third parties using fake invoices. 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 Domain Name <coachhubglobal.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2026

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