Planesenses.org

The timeline behind planesenses.org

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 PlaneSense, Inc. v. kenny Hjgkb, planesenses Case No. D2026-2229 1. The Parties Complainant is PlaneSense, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hayes Soloway, P.C., United States. Respondent is kenny Hjgkb, planesenses, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <planesenses.org> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2026. On May 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 26, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0178356249) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 27, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 28, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was June 22, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 23, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant offers programs for fractional ownership of private aircraft under the name PlaneSense. Complainant is the owner of United States Registration No. 2,886,480 for the service mark PLANESENSE registered on September 21, 2004, in international class 36 (hereinafter the “PLANESENSE Mark”). Complainant recently learned that Respondent had registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 19, 2026. On or about May 20, 2026 – one day after the Disputed Domain Name was registered – a client of Complainant received a phishing email from Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name. The email purported to originate from Complainant through one of its staff, and purported to provide the client with new billing account information to which future payments may be directed. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 19, 2026, does not resolve to any active website, but is enrolled in a mail exchange (MX) allowing for the sending and receiving of email. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PLANESENSE Mark, because it contains the entirety of the PLANESENSE Mark, varying only by the addition of a letter “s” to render the plural. Complainant further contends that the addition of the letter “s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Complainant submits that the email sent by Respondent was not sent or authorized by Complainant. Complainant further submits that the email was sent with clear intent to impersonate Complainant and either pass along a virus, fraudulently obtain payment, or obtain confidential financial information or trade secrets. Complainant further submits that the name, phone number, email address, and street address registered by Respondent are false. The last name appears to have been created by “Mobile, AL” and the postal code is not a real postal code. The phone number contains too many digits to be a United States telephone number. The email address purports to be associated with a car rental business in Atlanta, Georgia. Complainant further submits that Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s phishing scheme cannot be considered bona fide or legitimate and does not confer rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s phishing scheme also demonstrates bad faith. Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name using false contract information is an additional indication of bad faith. Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the PLANESENSE Mark in which Complainant has rights; and ii) that 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 WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of a trademark, here the PLANESENSE Mark, prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the PLANESENSE Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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 PLANESENSE Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the PLANESENSE Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PLANESENSE Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the letter “s,” 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 PLANESENSE 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or page 4 (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the PLANESENSE Mark. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to 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 Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, 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 the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as impersonation, phishing, and fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on 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. The Policy paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the PLANESENSE Mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the PLANESENSE Mark from reflecting the PLANESENSE Mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the PLANESENSE Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. page 5 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of the PLANESENSE Mark and of Complainant’s rights at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. The sending of an email to one of Complainant’s clients the day after registration of the Disputed Domain Name corroborates this actual knowledge. Respondent’s actions are demonstrative of bad faith. In addition, Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as impersonation, phishing, and 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 constitutes 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 <planesenses.org> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2026

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