Barrickmining.top

The timeline behind barrickmining.top

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 Barrick Gold of North America, Inc., Barrick Mining Corporation v. Md Robiul Aowwal Raihan Case No. D2026-1822 1. The Parties The Complainants are Barrick Gold of North America, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”) and Barrick Mining Corporation, Canada, represented by Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Md Robiul Aowwal Raihan, Bangladesh. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <barrickmining.top> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) 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 29, 2026. On April 29, 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 confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 30, 2026. The Center verified that 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 May 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 26, 2026. The Center appointed Nicholas Weston 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an NYSE and TSX listed group that operates a business mining gold and copper in several countries with revenue approaching USD 13 billion in 2024. The Complainant holds registrations for the trademark BARRICK, and variations of it, in numerous countries including European Union (“EU”) Registration 008890386 for the word BARRICK registered on August 10, 2010, in classes 6, 14 and 37; EU Registration 018012698 for the figurative mark BARRICK registered on July 3, 2019, in classes 14, 37 and 42; and United States Registration 6225225 for the word BARRICK registered on December 22, 2020, in classes 6, 14, 37 and 42. The Complainant owns the domain name <barrick.com>, which has resolved to its main website since 1995. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 27, 2025, and resolves to a webpage that solicits the username and password of Internet users to “Create your Barrick Mining account” with a link to sign in if they “already have an account”. 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 cites its registrations for the trademark BARRICK, and variations of it, in several countries, as prima facie evidence of ownership. The Complainant submits that the mark BARRICK is well known and that its rights in that mark predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of the BARRICK trademark and that the addition of the word “mining” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.top” is not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because “Complainant’s use of the BARRICK Marks dates back to at least as early as 1983 and its earliest registration for the BARRICK Marks issued on September 18, 2013.”, and that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. The Complainant also submits that “it is likely the intention with the webpage to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves to collect sensitive information from users such as emails and passwords” which is not a legitimate or fair use under the Policy. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was, and currently is, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to evidence that points to awareness of the Complainant and its trademark. On the issue of registration in bad faith the Complainant submits that “[p]rior panels have held that bad faith is found if it is unlikely that the registrant would have selected the domain name without knowing of the reputation of the trademark in question. Such a finding is particularly apt where the complainant’s trademark is well-known, as is the case with the BARRICK Mark.”. On the issue of bad faith use, the Complainant submits “the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website bearing Complainant’s BARRICK Marks and BARRICK MINING corporate name with prompts for users to input their sensitive login information. Such use is very likely for the purpose of defrauding consumers and obtaining sensitive information which is clear evidence of bad faith”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisfied by a trademark registered in any country. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark BARRICK. Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BARRICK trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of: (a) an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark BARRICK; (b) followed by the word “mining”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.top”. It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “barrickmining”. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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 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 Disputed 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. page 4 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 not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, let alone any accurate or prominent disclosure of that relationship, or absence of such, on its website. The use of the Complainant’s trademark and the fields soliciting sensitive login information displayed on the Respondent’s website suggests that the Respondent has deliberately targeted the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s activities do not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, given the substantial reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or capacity to otherwise mislead Internet users. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as impersonation, 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. 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s widely-known trademark, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant’s trademark BARRICK when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. This Panel finds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Further, a gap of several years between registration of a complainant’s trademark and respondent’s registration of a disputed domain name (containing the trademark) may indicate bad faith registration. In this case, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name 15 years after the Complainant established registered trademark rights in the BARRICK mark. The Respondent has not come forward to rebut the Complainant’s allegations or to offer an alternative explanation. On the issue of use, the Complainant’s evidence is that the Disputed Domain Name was used to host a website that seeks to potentially harvest email addresses and passwords. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, alleged impersonation or passing off, and potential phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Complainant supplied evidence of the misleading website. The Panel accepts that the conjunction of the word “mining” with the Complainant’s trademark would be likely to compound the confusion. In the circumstances, having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. page 5 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 <barrickmining.top> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: June 6, 2026

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