Qintel.pro

The timeline behind qintel.pro

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 Qintel LLC v. Austin Steinbart, Quantum Media Group Case No. D2026-2267 1. The Parties The Complainant is Qintel LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Ference & Associates LLC, United States. The Respondent is Austin Steinbart, Quantum Media Group, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <qintel.pro> 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 26, 2026. On May 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 28, 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 28, 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. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the 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. The Respondent did not submit any response by that deadline. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2026. The next day, the Respondent filed a Response, stating that correspondence from the Center was blocked by his spam filter and did not come to his attention until June 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed David H. Bernstein 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. Pursuant to Rules, paragraph 10, the Panel admits the Response notwithstanding that it was filed one day late. The Respondent has explained that he received late notice of the proceeding because the earlier email from the Center was blocked by his spam filter, and he promptly provided a response one day later. The Response was received before the Panel’s appointment, and the late filing does not resolute in any prejudice to the Complainant. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Delaware limited liability company that develops and sells a suite of cybersecurity threat intelligence, compliance, and risk assessment software. Qintel is the Complainant’s company name, and the Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 7,084,194 for QINTEL (the “QINTEL Mark”), filed on April 7, 2022, and registered on June 20, 2023, in International Class 42. The Complainant claimed in its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) that its first use of the QINTEL Mark in commerce was at least as early as August 29, 2009; the Complainant claims common law rights dating back to that date. The Complainant also owns several other marks in connection with its cybersecurity services, including QSENTRY (U.S. Reg. No. 7,084,196) and QAUTH (U.S. Reg. No. 7,111,003). The Complainant owns the <qintel.com> domain name, which leads to its website promoting Qintel’s services. The Respondent is an individual. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, <qintel.pro>, on September 2, 2022. The Respondent operates a website at the disputed domain name, displaying the word “QINTELPRO” both stylized and in plain text at the top and bottom of the “www.qintel.pro” website, respectively. The Respondent claims noncommercial use for a “QINTELPRO” website project, beginning no later than December 9, 2022, as confirmed by Internet Archive captures. The Respondent’s website displays content described as “geopolitical intelligence curation”. Much of the Respondent’s website material consists of individual pages concerning historical and contemporary subjects related to government intelligence agencies, government and corporate document leaks, wars, and alleged global corruption among political and economic actors. The Respondent’s website includes political reform proposals and provides visitors with links to visit and donate to an entity called the “Quantum Party of America”. The Respondent’s website also includes links to third-party free hacking and “OSINT (Open- Source Intelligence)” online tools, which provide various services including privacy enhancement, data aggregation, internet monitoring, and translation. The Respondent does not charge fees for access to these curated linked tools. The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter dated March 10, 2025. The Respondent did not reply to the letter. 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. First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered QINTEL Mark, for which the Complainant asserts common law trademark rights dating from August 29, 2009. The Complainant contends the QINTEL Mark is famous. page 3 Second, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant avers that the Respondent is not commonly known as “Qintel” or “Qintel.pro” and that the Respondent is not making or preparing to make “any bona fide use of the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate offering of goods or services”. Further, the Complainant argues that the presence of the “OSINT” “Free Hacking Tools” pages on the Respondent’s website demonstrates that the Respondent occupies “a field directly overlapping with the Complainant’s core cyber threat intelligence business”, and is an illegitimate use “trad[ing] on the fame and goodwill of the QINTEL Mark”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not making “a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name” and that, regardless, “[a]ny such use would be tarnished by the clear incorporation” of the QINTEL Mark. Third, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s September 3, 2022 registration of the disputed domain name was made with “actual or constructive knowledge” of the QINTEL Mark because of the Complainant’s claimed widespread, continuous use since 2009. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent, by registering an identical domain name to the QINTEL Mark, intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the QINTEL Mark. The Complainant cites the Respondent’s use of “QINTELPRO” and the presence of “intelligence-related tools” as support for likely confusion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s conduct disrupts the Complainant’s business, preventing the Complainant from reflecting the QINTEL Mark in a “.pro” Top-Level Domain. Lastly, the Complainant points to the Respondent’s use of a privacy protection service and lack of response to a cease-and-desist letter as additional indicators of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the second and third elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. First, the Respondent—while conceding the first element and acknowledging that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s QINTEL Mark under the Policy—states that the disputed domain name reflects wordplay relevant to the subject matter of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent asserts that the “QINTELPRO” title, present on the Respondent’s website and apparent when the “qintel” second level domain name and “pro” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) are combined, is a domain-hack reference to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) program known as “COINTELPRO.” Second, the Respondent contends that he has demonstrated rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because he registered and used the disputed domain name, before notice of dispute, in connection with a “history-and-geopolitics publication” which engages in commentary and curates “historical and political subject matter”. The Respondent argues that this use is a noncommercial and fair use under the Policy. The Respondent emphasizes that the disputed domain name refers to COINTELPRO, supporting a theme “directly responsive to the publication’s editorial subject matter”, is not pretextual as to the Complainant, and does not exploit any association with the Complainant’s brand. The Respondent asserts that his “historical and geopolitical commentary” is unrelated to “enterprise cybersecurity procurement” and evidences no intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the QINTEL Mark. In response to the Complainant’s contention that the “OSINT” and “Free Hacking Tools” pages on the Respondent’s website demonstrate field and service overlap, the Respondent argues that these website sections are “expressly labeled for educational purposes only and link solely to free, third-party tools” which are unrelated to either party, not sold by the Respondent, and “do not offer the Complainant’s services”. The Respondent avers that these open-source tools are included to support “independent researchers” and argues that their presence does not convert the Respondent’s website “into a competing cybersecurity business”. page 4 Third, the Respondent contends that he did not register and does not use the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent expressly denies that he had heard of the Complainant or the QINTEL Mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent cites his registration date of September 2, 2022 predating the Complainant’s U.S. registration of the QINTEL Mark on June 20, 2023, and asserts that his subsequent population of the “QINTELPRO” website reflects conduct “inconsistent with an opportunistic registration” directed at the Complainant. The Respondent argues that the Complainant’s business is “marketed to corporate and government buyers” and is not famous to consumers. And, the Respondent notes that his project is presented under the “QINTELPRO” name, a claimed independent reference to COINTELPRO—never presented as just “QINTEL.” Further, the Respondent asserts that there is no bad faith use because: (1) the disputed domain name was not registered to sell, rent, or transfer it to the Complainant or a competitor; (2) the Respondent has no pattern of registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks; (3) the Respondent is not a competitor of the Complainant and did not register the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business; and (4) the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users by creating confusion with the QINTEL Mark, because the Respondent’s website consists of “historical and political commentary”, not cybersecurity services, “and the audiences do not overlap.” Lastly, the Respondent argues that his use of a privacy registration service is not alone evidence of bad faith, and results from a sincere interest in privacy given the “controversial” subject matter of his website. Likewise, the Respondent acknowledges the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant, averring that he held a good-faith belief his use was not infringing, so did not respond. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to obtain transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; (ii) the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 because it owns a valid trademark registration in the United States. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the QINTEL Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. For the purposes of the first element, the addition of the “.pro” gTLD is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. However, the meaning of the “.pro” gTLD may be considered further, below, in relation to the second and third elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances through which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice of the dispute, the respondent used, or prepared to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; page 5 (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has credibly explained that it adopted the disputed domain name as a domain-hack reference to COINTELPRO, with the “Q” substituting for “CO”. The Respondent’s website displays content and commentary focused on controversial historical and political topics. The intelligence community and industry are discussed insofar as the Respondent includes material concerning government leaks or his views about related topics. Furthermore, although the gTLD is often disregarded for the purposes of analyzing identity under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in cases where, as here, the combination of the mark and the gTLD “signals potential legitimate co-existence or fair use, and where the related website content supports such inference, panels may find this relevant under the second and third elements”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.2. Here, the Panel finds the Respondent’s account of the origin of the disputed domain name credible; the combination of “q” and “intel” and the “.pro” gTLD achieves the claimed “QINTELPRO/COINTELPRO” reference reflected on the Respondent’s website and social media, where the Respondent holds the project out under the “QINTELPRO” name. The fact that the Respondent’s website includes material about the FBI and COINTELPRO supports the Respondent’s account of the origin of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has also shown that it offered its services under the “QINTELPRO” name long prior to the commencement of this dispute. The Complainant nevertheless suggests that, because the Parties allegedly offer competing services in overlapping markets, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name infringes the Complainant’s trademark rights and therefore cannot be a bona fide offering of services. See, e.g., Nara Aziza Smith v. Vanessa Clarke, WIPO Case No. D2025-1839. Although there is some superficial similarity between some of the free resources to which the Respondent links on its website and the services offered by the Complainant, the Parties offer different services and cannot be said to be competitors. The fact that the Respondent’s website includes pages with links to free, third-party “OSINT” or “open-source intelligence” tools does not mean that the Respondent offers cyber threat intelligence services in competition with the Complainant. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent cannot have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name consists entirely of the Complainant’s trademark and therefore impersonates the Complainant. That argument reflects a misunderstanding of cases applying the impersonation doctrine in UDRP cases. When a party is commenting on or criticizing a brand owner, panels generally require that they do so using a domain name that makes clear that they are not the brand owner (e.g., brandsucks.com or unofficialbrandfanclub.com). See, e.g., WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.6.2, 2.7.2. The Respondent’s website was not created to comment on or criticize the Complainant; rather, it is, coincidentally, using a domain name identical to the trademark but for different, independent purposes. That is not prohibited by the impersonation doctrine. Nor has the Complainant shown that its trademark is so famous (or, indeed, famous at all) that the use of so similar a domain name must carry implied affiliation. Cf. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The other facts and circumstances of the case further support the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular: (i) the disputed domain name appears to have been registered and used for legitimate, non-pretextual purposes; (ii) the disputed domain name does not appear to have been registered and used to take advantage of the QINTEL Mark; and (iii) it is clear to Internet users visiting the Respondent’s website that it is not operated by the Complainant because of the prominent “QINTELPRO” name, site look-and-feel, and content. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish the second element of the Policy. page 6 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Even if the Complainant had established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel would still rule for the Respondent because the Complainant has not established bad faith registration and use. The Complainant included no evidence in the Complaint to support its contention that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Instead, the Complainant asserted conclusory allegations unsupported by factual evidence, including: - The Respondent had “actual or constructive knowledge” of the Complainant’s rights because of usage since 2009; - Identity in the disputed domain name means the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, reinforced through using “QINTELPRO” and “references to intelligence-related tools”; and - The Respondent’s conduct disrupts the Complainant’s business. These conclusory allegations are insufficient to carry the Complainant’s burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.2. To the contrary, the evidence in the case file supports a finding that the Respondent did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has not submitted credible evidence that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. As discussed above, the Panel credits the Respondent’s representation that he had not heard of the Complainant’s business or the QINTEL Mark before registering the disputed domain name, which he did to further his “QINTELPRO” website project. No evidence was offered to support the Complainant’s assertion that the QINTEL Mark is famous and therefore that the Respondent should have been aware of it. Further, the Respondent provides a credible explanation for his selection of the disputed domain name which is consistent with the Respondent’s website content and supports genuine, non-pretextual intent in registration and use. Where, as here, it appears on the record “that the Respondent adopted the name innocently, and without any knowledge of the Complainant or intent to trade on the Complainant’s reputation”, registration cannot have been in bad faith. Roy Alessi v. Erika vonGraevenitz, WIPO Case No. D2026-0251. The Panel declines to find bad faith use for similar reasons. The Panel finds no evidence on the record that shows any of the paragraph 4(b) circumstances present that could support a finding of bad faith use. Instead, the Panel finds the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a publication unrelated to the Complainant’s business, with no intent to trade on the Complainant’s goodwill or create confusion with the QINTEL Mark. No Internet user who happens upon the Respondent’s site could confuse the Respondent’s “QINTELPRO” site for the Complainant’s business or website, despite identity in the domain names and the Respondent linking to free, third-party “open-source intelligence” tools. Finally, the Panel rejects the Complainant’s argument that the Respondent’s use of a privacy protection service constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. Use of privacy services has become common in the GDPR era, and, in any event, the website includes links making clear that it is associated with the Quantum Party of America. Similarly without merit is the Complainant’s argument that the Respondent’s failure to reply to a cease-and-desist letter indicates bad faith, particularly when the Respondent reasonably believed there was no overlap between the Complainant’s field and the Respondent’s website. There is no legal obligation to respond to a cease-and-desist letter with which one disagrees. The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish the third element of the Policy. page 7 D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16. In this case, the Respondent requests the Panel consider finding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel declines to enter such a finding. Although the Complainant failed to establish its case and was based, in part, on conclusory allegations, the Complaint was not so weak that success was impossible. The Respondent has not submitted evidence showing that the Complaint was brought in bad faith or to harass the Respondent. To the contrary, the Complainant had reason to be suspicious of the Respondent’s intentions when it adopted the disputed domain name, which was identical to the Complainant’s trademark, especially given that the Respondent’s website appears to trade in topics and views that are not well accepted in mainstream political discussions. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /David H. Bernstein/ David H. Bernstein Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2026

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