Tigerbeetle.bid

The timeline behind tigerbeetle.bid

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 TigerBeetle, Inc. v. Shirley jio, abc.com Case No. D2026-2284 1. The Parties Complainant is TigerBeetle, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., United States. Respondent is Shirley jio, abc.com, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tigerbeetle.bid> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 29, 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 (Whois Privacy, Private by Design LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 1, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 1, 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 June 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2026. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 company based in the United States. Since approximately March 2024, Complainant has offered financial and payment-related products and services under the mark TIGERBEETLE. Complainant owns a registration for its TIGERBEETLE mark, United States Registration No. 8145999 (registered February 17, 2026). The application has a filing date of July 27, 2023, and claims first use in commerce on March 19, 2024. Complainant advertises its products and services to consumers online via a website associated with its domain name <tigerbeetle.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on January 30, 2026. Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that mimics Complainant’s website, including prominent display of Complainant’s marks without any disclaimer of affiliation or lack thereof. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, and no authorization to use Complainant’s marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant contends that it owns rights to the TIGERBEETLE mark. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s distinctive TIGERBEETLE mark, and is a clear reference thereto. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has set up a website at the disputed domain name “impersonating” Complainant, and “linking to Complainant’s legitimate website and social media profiles, to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing confidential or personally identifiable information.” In this regard, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, with knowledge of Complainant’s prior and “superior” rights, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. 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 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the TIGERBEETLE mark, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s TIGERBEETLE mark. 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. page 3 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving 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 illegitimate activity such as operation of a copycat website, 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. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the record includes evidence that Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website. This includes prominent display of Complainant’s marks, with no disclaimer of affiliation or lack thereof. The Panel thus finds sufficient evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, while Complainant’s trademark registration had not yet issued as of January 30, 2026, when the disputed domain name was registered (the registration did not issue until February 17, 2026), Complainant had a pending trademark application on file since July 27, 2023, with a claim of first use of the TIGERBEETLE mark in commerce as of March 19, 2024. Respondent’s conduct - including the creation of a website that closely mimics Complainant’s website and prominently displays Complainant’s marks - is consistent with prior knowledge of Complainant and its mark, and constitutes sufficient evidence of Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <tigerbeetle.bid> be transferred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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