Eissupply.com

The timeline behind eissupply.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 EIS Legacy, LLC v. joselynr joselynr Case No. D2026-2044 1. The Parties The Complainant is EIS Legacy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fredrikson & Byron, PA, United States. The Respondent is joselynr joselynr, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eissupply.com> is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2026. On May 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 16, 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 (John Doe / Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 18, 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 May 18, 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 May 28, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 is a specialty distributor, converter and fabricator of electrical process materials and related parts that was founded in 1946. The Complainant has used the trademark EIS since at least as early as 1968 and owns several United States trademark registrations for the word mark EIS, the EIS logo and marks that incorporate the EIS logo, including the following: - United States Registration Number 991886 for the mark EIS for insulating wedges for use in electric motors in international class 17, and distributorship services in the field of supplying parts to electric repair shops in international class 35, registered on August 27, 1974; - United States Registration Number 7361046 for the mark EIS (stylized) for flexible insulations and non- metal laminates used as primary insulation in electrical motors and transformers in international class 17, and distributorship services in the field of insulating and conductive parts and materials for electrical applications, namely, motors and transformers in international class 35, registered on April 16, 2024; and - United States Registration Number 7361043 for the mark EIS ENGINEERED & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS (stylized) for flexible insulations and non-metal laminates used as primary insulation in electrical motors and transformers in international class 17, and distributorship services in the field of insulating and conductive parts and materials for electrical applications, namely, motors and transformers in international class 35, registered on April 16, 2024. The Complainant has owned the domain name <eis-inc.com> since 1996 and uses it to operate a web site. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 11, 2026. The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that displays the Complainant’s logo, displays images of the Complainant’s products, and purports to offer these products. The Respondent’s web site includes an “About EIS” page that has information that is very similar to the information on the Complainant’s “About Us” page. 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 the Complainant’s EIS mark, the Respondent has no right to or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant notes that the Respondent is attempting to hold itself out as the Complainant or an affiliate of the Complainant by operating a web site that uses the Complainant’s distinctive logo, displays images of the Complainant’s products and recites information that is designed to mislead site visitors into believing that the site originates from the Complainant. page 3 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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, “supply”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed passing off as the Complainant, 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. page 4 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 is using the disputed domain name in connection with a web site that is designed to create the false impression that it is associated with the Complaint through the use of the Complainant’s distinctive logo, images of the Complainant’s products and an About page that describes the Complainant, including the location and date of its founding and the change of its business name. There is no doubt in this case that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business and operated a web site with the intention to deceive visitors into believing that the site was associated with the Complainant. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions demonstrate bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for presumptive commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s EIS mark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed passing off as the Complainant, 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. 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 <eissupply.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Michelle Brownlee/ Michelle Brownlee Sole Panelist Date: July 24, 2026

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