Virtualcoworker.online

The timeline behind virtualcoworker.online

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 Virtual Coworker, Inc. v. Virtual Coworker, Virtualcoworker Case No. D2026-2184 1. The Parties Complainant is Virtual Coworker, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. Respondent is Virtual Coworker, Virtualcoworker, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <virtualcoworker.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 20, 2026. On May 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 22, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 25, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 22, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 23, 2026. The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 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 Complainant is a virtual staffing and outsourcing company headquartered in Santa Monica, California that has operated since 2011. Complainant first began using VIRTUAL COWORKER as a trademark for outsource and recruitment services as early as 2011, and owns the following registrations (the “VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark”): Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date VIRTUAL COWORKER United States 35 4,443,784 December 3, 2013 Complainant operates a website using the <virtualcoworker.com> domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on March 19, 2026. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to a Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) website advertising credit cards, staffing services, citizenship applications, and virtual assistants. Complainant provided evidence indicating that the disputed domain name was utilized in emails impersonating recruiting personnel of Complainant and falsely indicating Complainant’s interest in interviewing potential employees of Complainant. Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent on May 13, 2026 and received a response from a “[...]@gmail.com” account apologizing for the “inconvenience and damages caused” and agreeing to follow instructions to resolve the matter but requesting USD 1,000. 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 it has rights in the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark as evidenced herein and thorough 14 years of common law rights via continuous use of the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark because the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark is fully incorporated, without modification, into the disputed domain name. Complainant notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name “.online” should be disregarded in the analysis under the first element of the Policy. Complainant contends Respondent should be considered to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark or to register any domain name incorporating the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark. Complainant contends Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of this dispute, Respondent is not commonly known as by the disputed domain name, and Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because the only evidence of Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is for illegal activities that Respondent acknowledged and offered to cease in exchange for a payment of USD 1,000. Complainant contends the disputed domain name should be considered to have been registered and used in bad faith because: (1) of Respondent’s verbatim adoption of the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark in the disputed domain name and its use of the disputed domain name to impersonate employment personnel of Complainant’s, without any plausible legitimate purpose; (2) by registering the disputed domain name using Complainant’s VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark, business name, and a version of Complainant’s street address in the registration, Respondent sought to impersonate Complainant; (3) Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark to defraud third parties by impersonating Complainant and its employees; (4) Respondent’s impersonation scheme has caused, and continues to cause, substantial harm to Complainant’s business by directly associating the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark with employment fraud; (5) page 3 as noted herein, Respondent requested USD 1,000 from Complainant after admitting wrongdoing and promising to stop its illegal activities and transfer the disputed domain name, which is equivalent to offering to transfer or cease infringement for consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs to register the disputed domain name; and (6) Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its true identify along with multiple pseudonymous email address, evidencing a pattern of concealment of its identity. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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 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. 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 identical to the VIRTUAL COWORKER Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The gTLD is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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 illegal activity, here, claimed passing off and employment fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. page 4 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to engage in extensive employment fraud by passing off as Complainant and Complainant’s hiring personnel in an attempt to defraud third parties. Respondent not only admitted to such wrongdoing and promised to stop its illegal activities but then attempted to extort USD 1,000 from Complainant as consideration for doing so. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed passing off and employment fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. 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 <virtualcoworker.online> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: July 14, 2026

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