Kingspanus.com

The timeline behind kingspanus.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 Kingspan Holdings (IRL) Limited v. he jxing Case No. D2026-1710 1. The Parties The Complainant is Kingspan Holdings (IRL) Limited, Ireland, represented by Tomkins & Co., Ireland. The Respondent is he jxing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kingspanus.com> 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 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 (Registration Private C/O Dynadot Privacy Service / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 6, 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 May 7, 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 May 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 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 in these proceedings is Kingspan Holdings (IRL) Limited. The Kingspan Group, of which the Complainant forms part, is a world-famous building materials company founded in 1966 and based in Ireland. The Group trades in over 80 countries with more than 210 factories employing over 22,000 people. The Group is an international leader in the building industry and operates with six divisions: insulated panels, insulation, light and air, water and energy, data and flooring, and roofing and waterproofing. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations worldwide for or including KINGSPAN, covering an array of building materials, including the following: International Trademark Registration No. 997199 KINGSPAN, registered on February 17, 2009, in classes 6, 17, 19 and 37; European Union Trademark Registration No. 000580217 KINGSPAN FIRESAFE (Stylized), registered on December 22, 1999, in classes 6, 17 and 19. Apart from its primary website at “www.kingspan.com”, the Complainant also operates regional websites in the countries in which it operates and in which its products are sold. The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2026, and resolves to a KINGSPAN-branded website displaying information relating to the Complainant’s offerings. 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 its KINGSPAN trademark is well-known internationally. At the time of filing the Complaint on April 22, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a fraudulent website located at “www.kingspanus.com”. The Complainant affirms that this website is unconnected with its legitimate operations. An ordinary consumer would see the disputed domain name and immediately believe it is affiliated with the Complainant’s United States operations. This risk is clear. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for the clear purpose of impersonating the Complainant’s offerings constitutes per se illegitimate activity that is manifestly considered evidence of bad- faith use. The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. page 3 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. 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, “us” 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 composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the geographical term “US”, which is connected with the Complainant’s field of activity in the United States of America, carries a risk of implied affiliation, as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. page 4 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 is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s KINGSPAN trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name on March 24, 2026. By that time, the Complainant had long registered and intensely used the KINGSPAN trademarks worldwide. The Panel also finds that by registering the disputed domain name which includes the Complainant’s trademark KINGSPAN in its entirety and includes the term “us”, which helps to create confusion in the public’s mind (by making them think that it relates to the Complainant’s business in the United States of America), in the absence of a credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name, the Respondent more likely than not was targeting the Complainant with the intention to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website designed to mimic the Complainant’s offerings further supports a finding of bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds that 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 <kingspanus.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Miguel B. O’Farrell/ Miguel B. O’Farrell Sole Panelist Date: June 15, 2026

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