Vuslon.site

The timeline behind vuslon.site

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 Vusiongroup v. Aleks Kolo Case No. D2026-1704 1. The Parties The Complainant is Vusiongroup, France, represented by Domgate, France. The Respondent is Aleks Kolo, Poland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vuslon.site> 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 22, 2026. On April 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 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 (Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 23, 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 28, 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 21, 2026. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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 has supplied retailer digital solutions under the mark VUSION since around 2019. The Complainant, which has 25 offices and 850 employees worldwide, supplies around 350 large retailers in Europe, Asia, and Africa. It had sales of around EUR 1 billion in 2024. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for VUSION including European Union trade mark No. 017952747, registered on January 30, 2019, in classes 6, 9, 20, 35, 38, and 42. The Complainant operates a website at “www.vusion.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on April 3, 2025. The Complainant submitted domain holder contact request forms on March 2, 2026, but did not receive a response. According to the Complainant, on an unknown date in 2026, the disputed domain name resolved/redirected to a webpage in Russian that was branded “MYGEN.BY” and offered generators for rent in Minsk. The website stated: “Reliable power supply for construction sites, retail facilities, and public events. Fast delivery, connection within 2 hours.” As of March 13, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to an “Index of /” error page. As of April 22, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a Registrar parking page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links in various categories incorporating the word “vision”. 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. 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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognisable 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. In particular, the disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of the trade mark in that it substitutes the letter “l” for “i”. (See further under the third element below.) Such variations are considered page 3 by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name has been used to resolve/redirect to a website page for rental of generators in Minsk with no obvious branding or other connection with “vuslon”, to a parking page with PPC links relating to the word “vision”, and to an error page. In the Panel’s view such uses of the disputed domain name do not confer rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name substitutes the letter “l” in the Complainant’s mark with the homoglyph (i.e., similar-looking) letter “i”, which could facilitate phishing or other fraud. Furthermore, on the record before it, and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the apparently random uses of the disputed domain name (see under the second element above) do not suggest an obvious legitimate reason for the Respondent to adopt the term “vuslon”. Nor has the Respondent appeared in this proceeding to explain or defend its behaviour. In these circumstances, the Panel finds it reasonable to conclude that, on balance of probabilities, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in order to illicitly target the Complainant’s mark in some way. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 4 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 <vuslon.site> be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2026

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