Trylivemomentous.shop

The timeline behind trylivemomentous.shop

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 AmpHP, Inc. v. Amy Wang Case No. D2026-1748 1. The Parties The Complainant is AmpHP, Inc., United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO, U.S. The Respondent is Amy Wang, U.S.. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <trylivemomentous.shop> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 24, 2026. On April 24, 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 (Privacy User #1749882e) 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 29, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 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. page 2 The Center appointed R. Eric Gaum 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns the following active U.S. trademark registrations (hereinafter, the “Registered Marks”): MOMENTOUS (U.S. Reg. No. 5755404) for use in connection with “Nutritional supplements; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix containing protein, and related items, namely, vitamins and dietary supplements” in International Class 5 and “Providing consumer product information via the Internet in the field of nutritional supplements, including protein powders and supplements; online retail store services featuring nutritional supplements, including protein powders and supplements” in International Class 35. (U.S. Reg. No. 8031668) for use in connection with “Dietary and nutritional supplements; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix containing protein; Vitamin supplements; Medicated lotions for improving wellness and promoting athletic performance and recovery” in International Class 5 and “Shaker bottles sold empty” in International Class 21 and “Providing consumer product information via the Internet; On-line retail store services featuring dietary and nutritional supplements” in International Class 35. The disputed domain name was registered on April 10, 2026. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using a website at the disputed domain name as retaliation for a previous unfavorable UDRP decision against her in AmpHP, Inc. v. Amy Wang, WIPO Case No. D2026-0965. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to a 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 the following: The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MOMENTOUS Registered Mark in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name shares the identical and dominant wording MOMENTOUS set forth in Complainant's trademark registration. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Registered Marks in connection with, e.g., nutritional supplements or online retail store services offering nutritional supplements for sale. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, which is identical or confusingly similar to the Registered Marks, is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather appears designed to misappropriate the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s Registered Marks. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the Respondent is Amy Wang. The Complainant recently received a favorable UDRP decision against Amy Wang in AmpHP, Inc. v. Amy Wang, WIPO Case No. D2026-0965 in connection with a similar domain name dispute. Upon information and belief, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name at issue herein in a retaliatory manner to the unfavorable Administrative Panel Decision against her in AmpHP, Inc. v. Amy Wang, WIPO Case No. D2026-0965 as a further act of bad faith. page 3 The Respondent, through the disputed domain name, provides online retail store services that offer for sale nutritional supplement products that directly compete with the Complainant’s online retail store services and nutritional supplement products. The Respondent has also improperly used the Registered Marks on the disputed domain name website, along with copyrighted works taken from the Complainant's website. Such improper use of the Complainant's Registered Marks and copyrighted works does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead demonstrates an intent by the Respondent to capitalize on the reputation and consumer recognition of the Complainant. The Respondent’s actions therefore are intentionally designed to mislead consumers into believing that its website and products are affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by the Complainant, when in fact no such relationship exists. Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent has made any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute. Instead, the Respondent’s conduct indicates an intent to exploit the Complainant’s trademark rights for commercial gain, which further supports the conclusion that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s Registered Mark MOMENTOUS, strongly suggests an attempt to trade off Complainant’s goodwill and established reputation in the marketplace. Such conduct is inconsistent with any claim of rights or legitimate interests by the Respondent and thus strongly supports a finding in favor of the Complainant. 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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, “try” and “live”, 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 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. page 4 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 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent set up an online retail store using the disputed domain name that offers for sale nutritional supplement products that directly compete with Complainant’s online retail store services and nutritional supplement products. Furthermore, the Respondent has also used copyrighted works taken from Complainant's website on its competing website at the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant has raised a reasonable inference that Respondent registered the disputed domain name as retaliation for a previous unfavorable UDRP decision against her. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate and/or illegal activity here, claimed copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud 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 disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <trylivemomentous.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /R. Eric Gaum/ R. Eric Gaum Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2026

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