Vuslon.com

The timeline behind vuslon.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 VUSIONGROUP v. Steve Mullary Case No. D2026-1789 1. The Parties The Complainant is VUSIONGROUP, France, represented by Domgate, France. The Respondent is Steve Mullary, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vuslon.com> 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 27, 2026. On April 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 29, 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, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 29, 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 6, 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. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on May 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alexander Duisberg as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 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, VUSIONGROUP, is a French technology company that provides digital solutions for the physical retail sector. The Complainant traces its history back to the French Group “SES” (Store Electronic Systems), which was founded in 1992 in northern France. The Complainant equipped its first store with electronic shelf labels (“ESLs”) in 1993 and was listed on the Paris stock exchange in 2006. In 2014, SES entered into a strategic alliance with imagotag GmbH (Austria) creating a legal entity operating under the brand “SES-imagotag”. Among various innovations, SES-imagotag developed the VUSION Retail IoT platform to help retailers transform their physical stores into high value digital assets. VUSION became a leading-edge platform and claims that it is currently the leading provider of a retail IoT SaaS solution and the number one choice for electronic price tags. In 2024, SES-Imagotag changed its corporate name to VUSIONGROUP. In January 2026, the Complainant announced that it would rebrand and operate primarily under its principal trademark VUSION, although its corporate name remains VUSIONGROUP. The Complainant’s customers include more than 350 large retailers in Europe, Asia and America, with around 25 offices worldwide and 850 employees. The Complainant is the owner of numerous VUSION trademark registrations in various jurisdictions around the world including: - French Trade Mark Registration No. 4400470 for VUSION, registered on February 23, 2018; - French Trade Mark Registration No. 4400460 for VUSION (combined), registered on February 23, 2018; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017416488 for VUSION, registered on February 27, 2018; and - International Trademark Registration Nos. 1420807 and 1426878 for VUSION, registered on March 13, 2018 and April 26, 2018, respectively. In addition to the trademarks specifically relied upon, the Complainant owns several national trademarks in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Switzerland, and other jurisdictions. The Complainant claims that it also owns and operates several VUSION domain names such as <vusion.com>, <vusion.fr>, and <vusion.it>, and its main website is attached to “www.vusion.com”. The disputed domain name <vuslon.com> was registered on February 23, 2026. The Complainant’s rights in the VUSION trademark and domain names substantially predate the registration of the disputed domain name. According to the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has resolved to a parked website with pay-per-click advertisements. The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name initially resolved to a Registrar parking page, then a standard page concerning shopping that displayed pay-per-click links, and at the time of filing of the Complaint, resolved again to the Registrar landing page with pay-per-click advertisements. The Complainant’s representative submitted domain holder contact request forms on March 2, 2026, March 13, 2026, and March 27, 2026. The Respondent did not reply to these attempts to make contact. page 3 On April 29, 2026, following the Center’s Notice of Registrant Information, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant (without copying the Center) with obscene language. 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 <vuslon.com> is confusingly similar to its VUSION trademark. The Complainant submits that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the VUSION trademark is the replacement of the letter “i” with the letter “l”, which constitutes a typical homoglyph or typosquatting attempt exploiting the visual similarity between these characters. The Complainant argues that such homoglyph domains are a common typosquatting technique, and that the disputed domain name is almost identical to its well-known trademark and domain names. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the VUSION trademark as a domain name or in any other way. The Complainant notes that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contact attempts prior to filing the Complaint, and that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website with pay-per-click advertisements, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant also submits that a Google search on the Respondent’s name associated with “VUSION” or “vuslon” does not produce any relevant results. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer it to the Complainant or to a competitor to obtain unjustified benefits. The Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to pay-per-click advertisements generates “click through” traffic and revenue for the Respondent, which amounts to use in bad faith. The Complainant further notes that the VUSION trademark is often targeted by cybersquatters, and that several previous UDRP decisions have been rendered in favour of the Complainant concerning similar domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions in the proceedings. In addition to the email of April 29, 2026, to the Complainant, the Respondent sent another obscene email communication to the Center on May 27, 2026. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel acknowledges the consensus view that the Respondent’s failure to formally respond to the Complaint does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. page 4 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 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 disputed domain name <vuslon.com> differs from the Complainant’s VUSION trademark only by the substitution of the letter “i” for the letter “l”. This is a typosquatting domain name, exploiting the visual similarity between the lowercase letter “l” and the letter “i”. Panels have consistently held that such minor character substitutions designed to mimic a trademark do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see Spectris plc v. James Desmond, WIPO Case No. D2025-4924; Alvazzi Holding SA v. Jefferey Stone, Enhance On Demand Labors Supply LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-4661; TGI Fridays Franchisor, LLC v. Arik Hen, WIPO Case No. D2025-2094. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. The VUSION 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. 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. (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WalMart Careers, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-0285; and Swedish Match North Europe AB, Philip Morris International, Inc v. durant Kevin, Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, WIPO Case No. D2026-0081). 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 notes that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the VUSION trademark as a domain name or in any other way. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. A Google search on the Respondent’s name associated with “VUSION” or “vuslon” does not produce any relevant results. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website with pay-per-click advertisements. Panels have held that the use of a domain name to host a parked website comprising pay-per-click advertisements does not represent a bona fide offering where such links capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. dale Stehlik, Jam Pharmaci, WIPO Case No. D2024-3349; Pluxee International v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion page 5 Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2024-2479; and LPL Financial LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2024-1858). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9. 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. Panels have held that typosquatting, i.e. the registration of domain names that are common, obvious, or intentional misspellings of a trademark, constitutes bad faith registration where the respondent must have been aware of the complainant’s trademark (see salesforce.com, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC/ Richard Marvin, WIPO Case No. D2021-1399 (concerning <saiseforce.com>); MultiPlan, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Lilly Walton, WIPO Case No. D2021-1123 (concerning <multlplan.com>); SES-imagotag SA v. Admin Console, WIPO Case No. D2023-0002 (concerning <ses- lmagotag.com>)). Panels have further held that, particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay- per-click links, a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests) (see SAP SE v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Kamal Karmakar, WIPO Case No. D2016-2497). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5. The disputed domain name is a typosquatting variant of the Complainant’s well-known VUSION trademark, substituting only the letter “i” for the letter “l”. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website with pay-per-click advertisements, thereby presumably generating “click through” traffic and revenue. It is well established that where a domain name is used to generate revenue in respect of “click through” traffic, and that traffic has been attracted because of the name’s association with the complainant, such use amounts to use in bad faith (see Erica Wright v. Tom Belfort, Wolf AI Digital LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-1942; Kylie Jenner, Inc. v. James Skinner, Bulk Bear Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2024-4558; and SAP SE v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Kamal Karmakar, WIPO Case No. D2016-2497. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5. The Panel further notes that the Respondent’s conduct during these proceedings is consistent with bad faith. As noted above, the Respondent’s reply to the Complainant on April 29, 2026, upon receiving the Center’s notice of registrant information, and subsequent email to the Center upon notification of default, was limited to vulgar and offensive content, whereas the Respondent never provided any substantive explanation or justification for the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant characterizes this behaviour as that of someone “caught red-handed”. The Panel agrees that the Respondent’s hostile response and complete failure to provide any legitimate explanation, combined with the typosquatting nature of the domain name and the use of pay-per-click advertising, demonstrates bad faith. Panels have confirmed in a variety of UDRP decisions that where a complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of a disputed domain name and the mark is well known, the mere registration of a confusingly similar domain name by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (see International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. Zachary Silva, Catenact.io, WIPO Case No. D2025-1941; and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. Tyler Dikman, WIPO Case No. D2025-2376). The Complainant’s registrations of the VUSION trademark predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Based on the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered VUSION trademark in a domain name registration. The Panel finds that the Respondent was, or should have been, aware of the Complainant’s VUSION trademark at the time of registration. VUSION is a coined term (see SES-IMAGOTAG v. Wayne Gao, WIPO Case No. D2023-2807; VUSIONGROUP v. 北京水之碟文化发展有限公司 (bei jing shui zhi die wen hua fa zhan you xian gong si), WIPO Case No. D2025-0945; and VUSIONGROUP SA v. cicilia page 6 wijaya, 01, WIPO Case No. D2025-3000). Further, the Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the VUSION trademark enjoys reputation worldwide. Thus, the Respondent could not reasonably ignore the reputation of goods or services offered under this trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the expectation of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the VUSION trademark. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s VUSION trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alexander Duisberg/ Alexander Duisberg Sole Panelist Date: June 19, 2026

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