Heisenbergammo.com

The timeline behind heisenbergammo.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 Douglas Hillman, Heisenberg Ammo LLC v. Jon Ferns Case No. D2026-2128 1. The Parties The Complainant is Douglas Hillman, Heisenberg Ammo LLC, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. The Respondent is Jon Ferns, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <heisenbergammo.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 May 16, 2026. On May 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 18, 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 May 22, 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 24, 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 28, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 17, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on May 29, 2026, and June 6, 2026. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on June 29, 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 in the business of wholesale and retail ammunition sales at gun shows across five states in the United States. It owns the trademark HEISENBERG AMMO, for which it claims common law rights through continuous commercial use since January 2021. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2021. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic via a 301 permanent redirect to the Respondent’s own commercial website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal Response to the Complaint. The Respondent’s only communications consisted of brief emails indicating, among other things, that it would allow the domain name to expire, without presenting any evidence or arguments contesting the Complainant’s allegations. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (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 finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 1.7. The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant does not assert a registered trademark and instead relies on common law rights in the HEISENBERG AMMO mark. To establish such rights under the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. Relevant evidence of acquired distinctiveness (or secondary meaning) includes the duration and nature of use, the amount of sales under the mark, the extent of advertising, the degree of public recognition, and consumer surveys. Id. Applying these factors, the Panel finds the Complainant has met its burden. Most significantly, the Complainant has submitted specific sales figures under the mark: card-processed revenue of approximately USD 1,974,662 in 2023, USD 2,183,377 in 2024, and USD 1,631,771 in 2025. The Complainant further asserts use of the mark as a source identifier in commerce, asserting use in connection with an ammunition business at gun shows across five states in the United States. It maintains substantial inventory, and uses page 3 the HEISENBERG AMMO mark on marketing materials, merchandise, and price signs, linking the mark to the branded goods offered. The Respondent’s conduct supports the inference that the mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. A respondent’s targeting of the complainant’s mark may support a finding of secondary meaning. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. Here, the Respondent, apparently a competitor in the same Texas gun- show industry, registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s mark approximately five months after the Complainant’s business was formed, and allegedly indicated to the Complainant that the disputed domain name was held out of spite toward the Complainant. This targeting is strong evidence that the mark identified the Complainant as a source. Taken together with the documented sales, the record establishes acquired distinctiveness. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.2.1, 1.3. The disputed domain name incorporates the HEISENBERG AMMO mark in its entirety, with no other words or symbols. This makes it identical to the Complainant’s mark. It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to a complainant’s trademark to not take the extension into account. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at 1.11.1 (“The 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”). The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent has never operated under the name HEISENBERG AMMO and has no connection to the Complainant’s business or brand; (2) the Respondent is not commonly known by the HEISENBERG AMMO name and holds no trademark rights (registered or common law) in that name; and (3) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic via a 301 permanent redirect to the Respondent’s own commercial website. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The record demonstrates multiple indicators of bad faith registration. The timing is highly probative. The Complainant formed its company on January 26, 2021, and the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 4, 2021, just a few months later. Both Parties operate in the gun show industry in Texas. The circumstances strongly suggest that the Respondent became aware of the Complainant’s business, either through public records or other means, and deliberately targeted the Complainant by registering a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s mark and identical to it. page 4 Further, according to the Complainant, when the Complainant approached the Respondent directly about purchasing the disputed domain name, the Respondent refused to sell and indicated that the disputed domain name was being held out of spite toward the Complainant. While the Complainant does not provide direct evidence in support of this assertion, the Respondent did not deny this allegation. Therefore, taken as true and considering the other circumstances of the case, this conduct demonstrates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name not for any legitimate business purpose, but for the express purpose of preventing the Complainant from using the disputed domain name and to disrupt the Complainant’s business. This satisfies the bad faith indicators in paragraph 4(b)(iii) (registering the domain primarily to disrupt a competitor’s business). The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name further demonstrates bad faith. The disputed domain name has been configured to redirect via HTTP 301 (permanent redirect) to the Respondent’s commercial website, thereby leveraging the Complainant’s established brand reputation to divert potential customers to the Respondent’s competing gun show promotion business. This Panel finds this to be use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s HEISENBERG AMMO mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and services. This satisfies the bad faith indicator in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under 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 <heisenbergammo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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