Hairitagerepairshampoo.com

The timeline behind hairitagerepairshampoo.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 Hairitage IP LLC, v. Fran Napoleone, NapoleoneFran Case No. D2026-1987 1. The Parties Complainant is Hairitage IP LLC, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Dorf Nelson & Zauderer LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Fran Napoleone, NapoleoneFran, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hairitagerepairshampoo.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2026. On May 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 12, 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 (hairitagerepairshampoo.com, onamae.com, and GMO Internet Group) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 18, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 18, 2026. The Center sent a further email communication to Complainant on May 20, 2026, regarding identification of Respondent, and requesting Complainant to submit a further amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on May 21, 2026, which is referred to herein as the “Complaint.” The Center verified that the original complaint together with the first and second amended Complaints 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 22, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due page 2 date for Response was June 11, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 14, 2026. The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 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 Complainant states that, “[o]n or around December 2019, the HAIRITAGE brand was launched by Complainant’s exclusive licensee, Maesa LLC and promoted in conjunction with world famous influencer and hair stylist Mindy McKnight”; that “[a]s noted in Women’s Wear Daily, the HAIRITAGE products were first launched at Walmart”; that “according to a public report by Harvard business school, the brand generated $23 million in 2023”; and that “[t]he HAIRITAGE brand is now famous, with the brand having over 525,000 followers on YouTube, 289,000 on Instagram, and 227,900 on TikTok.” Complainant uses the domain name <hairitagebymindy.com> in connection with a website that appears to sell various hair products, including shampoo and accessories. Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it is the owner of at least six registrations for the trademark HAIRITAGE, including the following: • U.S. Reg. No. 6,035,620 for HAIRITAGE (registered April 14, 2020) for use in connection with, inter alia, “hair shampoo”; • U.S. Reg. No. 6,642,031 for HAIRITAGE (registered February 15, 2022) for use in connection with, inter alia, “headbands”; • U.S. Reg. No. 7,135,393 for HAIRITAGE (registered August 15, 2023) for use in connection with, inter alia, “operating an on-line shopping site in the field of haircare, haircare tools, and haircare accessories”. The above registrations are referred to herein as the “HAIRITAGE Trademark.” The Disputed Domain Name was created on March 16, 2026. Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with a website that is “[u]sing as its header the same trademark and logo that Complain[an]t uses on its own website”; that it “[u]sing photographs, without authorization of the brand’s selection of hair care products and tools”; that is “[u]sing photographs, without authorization of the founder of HAIRITAGE, Mindy McKinght’s children”; and that is “[i]ntentionally misrepresenting that it created the HAIRITAGE products” by describing itself on the website as “the actual producers of these goods.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that: • The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the HAIRITAGE Trademark because, inter alia, the Disputed Domain Name contains the HAIRITAGE Trademark in its entirety, and previous panel have found that domain names containing a complainant’s trademark plus the words “shampoo” or “repair” are still confusingly similar to the trademark. • Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent was not known by the Disputed Domain Name prior to March 16, 2026 (the date of registration page 3 of the Disputed Domain Name [...], is not making legitimate noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and it is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services”; “Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its HAIRITAGE trademark or any variation thereof”; “the Dispute[d] Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization and uses the domain name to display a website that contains further illegitimate and unauthorized uses of both Complainant’s HAIRITAGE trademark and images of Mindy McKnight’s children to promote itself”; Respondent has not taken any “steps to prevent confusion by making it clear that it is not the trademark owner by accurately disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner”; and “Respondent’s unauthorized use of photographs of Mindy McKnight’s children using the brand’s hair tools in proximity of HAIRITAGE products and the HAIRITAGE trademark as a banner [...], are clear evidence that Respondent is trying to impersonate Complainant, which is not legitimate use.” • The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark and went to great length to impersonate Complainant in order to draw traffic to the URL of the Disputed Domain Name” by taking the actions described above. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the HAIRITAGE Trademark. As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the HAIRITAGE Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., “hairitagerepairshampoo”) because “[t]he applicable Top-Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.11.1. As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.1, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, [...] the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.” Further, as set forth in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1, “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” Here, the Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the HAIRITAGE Trademark, and the addition of the words “repair” and “shampoo” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has argued that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent was not known by the Disputed Domain Name prior to March 16, 2026 (the date of registration of the Disputed Domain Name [...], is not making legitimate noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and it is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services”; “Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its HAIRITAGE trademark or any variation thereof”; “the Dispute[d] page 4 Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization and uses the domain name to display a website that contains further illegitimate and unauthorized uses of both Complainant’s HAIRITAGE trademark and images of Mindy McKnight’s children to promote itself”; Respondent has not taken any “steps to prevent confusion by making it clear that it is not the trademark owner by accurately disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner”; and “Respondent’s unauthorized use of photographs of Mindy McKnight’s children using the brand’s hair tools in proximity of HAIRITAGE products and the HAIRITAGE trademark as a banner [...], are clear evidence that Respondent is trying to impersonate Complainant, which is not legitimate use.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1, states: “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 often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” The Panel finds that Complainant has established its prima facie case and without any evidence from Respondent to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. Policy, paragraph 4(b). In the present case, Complainant states and provides documentation in support thereof (which Respondent has not denied) that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with a website that impersonates Complainant. Clearly, using a disputed domain name that contains a complainant’s trademark to imitate a complainant’s commercial website creates a likelihood of confusion under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as panels have frequently found. See, e.g., Golden Goose S.p.A. v. Ge Deng Gu Si Ge Deng Gu Si, Ge Deng Gu Si, WIPO Case No. D2017-0067 (finding bad faith based on “Respondent’s unauthorized reproduction of images from the Complainant’s advertising campaign and websites on the Respondent’s website” to offer footwear for sale); The Gap, Inc. and Athleta, Inc. v. 朱亚磊 (Ya Lei Zhu), WIPO Case No. D2021-2965 (finding bad faith where “the disputed domain name directed to an e-commerce website which copied images of the Complainant’s [...] products [...] without any disclaimer as to the Respondent’s (absence of) relationship with the Complainants”); and Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (trading as Seiko Holdings Corporation) v. Zhang qianqian, fu longyang, WIPO Case No. D2012-1467 (finding bad faith where “Respondent has copied and reproduced on the Websites various images the copyright in which is owned by the Complainant” and offered for sale the same products as complainant). page 5 The Panel finds that 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 <hairitagerepairshampoo.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Douglas M. Isenberg/ Douglas M. Isenberg Sole Panelist Date: June 19, 2026

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