Bluebookplus.plus

The timeline behind bluebookplus.plus

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 College Board v. students community Case No. D2026-1725 1. The Parties The Complainant is College Board, United States of America (“US”), represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., US. The Respondent is students community, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bluebookplus.plus> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) 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 (Redacted for Privacy, 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 27, 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 30, 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 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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. On June 9, 2026, prior to the issuance of this Decision, the Respondent transmitted an email to the Center and the Complainant in the following terms: “Without admission as to the merits of the Complaint, and solely in the interest of procedural efficiency for all parties, I hereby consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name <bluebookplus.plus> to the Complainant. This consent applies exclusively to the above-named domain name. Kindly advise on the procedural steps required to implement the transfer and conclude these proceedings.” 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a not-for-profit organisation that has worked to expand access to higher education since 1900. It administers a range of standardised assessments, including the SAT and Advanced Placement (AP) examinations, serving more than seven million students annually. The SAT and AP programs, both administered by the Complainant, serve distinct roles in US university admissions. The SAT is a standardized aptitude test for undergraduate admission, while AP exams evaluate mastery of specific college-level curricula completed during high school. In 2023, the Complainant launched BLUEBOOK, a proprietary digital testing application through which students are required to take the digital SAT, PSAT, and AP examinations. The BLUEBOOK application has been downloaded over 15 million times on iOS alone and has been used over 55 million times since its launch. The Complainant’s SAT examinations are administered at testing centres on nearly every continent. The BLUEBOOK mark has received significant coverage in prominent media outlets including NPR, USA Today, and Education Week. The Complainant has filed three US trademark applications based on actual use of the BLUEBOOK mark: US Application No. 97727297 for the word mark BLUEBOOK (filed December 21, 2022, Classes 9 and 41); US Application No. 97727313 for a stylised BLUEBOOK device mark (filed December 21, 2022, Classes 9 and 41); and US Application No. 97760249 for the word mark BLUEBOOKPRO (filed January 19, 2023, Classes 9 and 42). The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 27, 2026. At the time of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website operated under the name “Bluebook Plus+” which offered full- length digital SAT practice examinations and a question bank for a fee of USD 29, using content described as drawn from previous College Board examinations. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy protection service. The Registrar’s confirmed registrant contact details provided to the Center has contained inconsistencies, with address fields referencing different cities in Egypt and Lebanon. 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 its BLUEBOOK marks. In addition to its trademark application for BLUEBOOK, the Complainant contends that it has developed enormous goodwill in the BLUEBOOK trademark, and the BLUEBOOK trademark has become an identifier exclusively related to the products and services provided by the Complainant. The second-level element of the Disputed Domain Name, “bluebookplus”, incorporates the BLUEBOOK mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic term “plus”. The “.plus” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix should be page 3 disregarded in the comparison. The addition of a generic term such as “plus” does not dispel confusing similarity to the underlying mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name well after the Complainant had established extensive rights in the BLUEBOOK mark. There is no relationship between the Parties, and the Complainant has never licensed or authorised the Respondent to use the BLUEBOOK marks in any form. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to host a website offering services that are virtually identical to those offered by the Complainant under the BLUEBOOK mark, but on a for-fee basis, thereby trading on the Complainant’s rights and misleading consumers who associate the BLUEBOOK name with free test preparation services. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was plainly aware of the Complainant’s BLUEBOOK mark, given the nature of the Respondent’s website and the Respondent’s use of content copied from the Complainant’s own examinations. The Respondent has intentionally attracted Internet users to its commercial website for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks. The Respondent used false or inconsistent contact details when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant seeks transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal Response to the Complaint. As noted above, on June 9, 2026, the Respondent sent an email to the Center and the Complainant consenting, without admission as to the merits, to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Matters – No Response The Panel notes that no formal Response has been received from the Respondent. However, given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, then the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any formal Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). The Panel also notes that an informal response has been received from the Respondent (see discussion below). Substantive Matters - Finding Based on Consent Given the content of the June 9, 2026 email from the Respondent (see above), the Panel adopts the approach set out in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10 as follows: “How do panels handle cases involving a respondent’s informal or unilateral consent for the transfer of the domain name to the complainant outside the ‘standard settlement process’ described above? Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the ‘standard settlement process’ described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis).” page 4 See for example Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-0434, where the Panel stated as follows: “However, this Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. As was noted by the Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, when the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, and in light of the parties’ stipulations set forth above, the Panel will order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. Id.; Williams- Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207.” In light of the above, the Panel will order a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant based on the Respondent’s consent. Given this finding it is not necessary for the Panel to consider the further details of the Complainant’s case. 7. Decision For all 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 <bluebookplus.plus> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nick J. Gardner/ Nick J. Gardner Sole Panelist Date: June 16, 2026

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