Visitqiddiya.com

The timeline behind visitqiddiya.com

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 Qiddiya Investment Company v. Adel Alansari Case No. D2026-1709 1. The Parties The Complainant is Qiddiya Investment Company, Saudi Arabia, represented by Saba & Co. Intellectual Property s.a.l. (Offshore) Head Office, Lebanon. The Respondent is Adel Alansari, Bahrain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <visitqiddiya.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2026. On April 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 24, 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 ((The identity of the Respondent is hidden) / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 24, 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 27, 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 29, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on June 1, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant was established in 2018 to oversee the implementation and development of a Saudi Arabian entertainment project aimed at becoming one of the largest cultural, sports, and entertainment cities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the world. The newly-created city is named Qiddiya and is located southwest of the capital of Riyadh. The project launch announcement on April 7, 2017 by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was covered by the international and regional press. The project aims to establish Qiddiya as a global tourist destination. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for QIDDIYA in many countries around the world including the following: - Saudi Arabia Trade Mark Registration No. 1440004754 for QIDDIYA & Arabic script and Logo filed on November 1, 2018 and registered on January 9, 2019; - Saudi Arabia Trade Mark Registration No. 1440004757 for QIDDIYA & Arabic script and Logo filed on November 1, 2018 and registered on January 9, 2019; - Saudi Arabia Trade Mark Registration No. 1440004762 for QIDDIYA & Arabic script and Logo filed on November 1, 2018 and registered on January 9, 2019; (individually and collectively, the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant owns and operates the website at the domain name <qiddiya.com>. The domain name was registered on June 22, 2017. The Respondent, who appears to be based in Bahrain, registered the disputed domain name on October 28, 2017. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a registrar parking page; at the time of the Decision, it does not resolve to an active website. 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 is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 identity or 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“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 entirety of the textual elements of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. While the addition of the word “visit” before the Trade Mark may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the word does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often impossible 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. 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 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. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s Trade Mark in its entirety with the word “visit” added as a prefix. Given that the Trade Mark comprises the name of a new city created by the Complainant, the disputed domain name is likely to mislead Internet users expecting to find the Complainant as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. Based on the available record, 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. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Trade Mark with the prefix “visit” which references the fact that the Respondent had actual knowledge of and was targeting the Complainant and the Trade Mark associated with the creation of its attractions when registering the disputed domain name. This is exacerbated by the fact that the disputed domain name was registered a few months after the announcement of the project associated with the Trade Mark. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is inactive. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy is non- exhaustive. In assessing bad faith, panels may also consider broader circumstances indicating that the respondent targeted the complainant, including the nature of the disputed domain name and the absence of any credible explanation for its registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding, particularly noting the reputation of the Complainant’s Trade Mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name, which is not only confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and is obviously targeting the Complainant, is an indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name and the lack of a response from the Respondent, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <visitqiddiya.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: June 15, 2026

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