Neoprosonegel.com

The timeline behind neoprosonegel.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Mitchell Group USA, LLC v. Valentina Vorovska Case No. D2026-2304 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mitchell Group USA, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by LVP Solutions, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Valentina Vorovska, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <neoprosonegel.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 28, 2026. On May 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 30, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the 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. The Complainant filed amended Complaints on June 4 and June 10, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on July 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 The Complainant is active in the field of c osm et i cs and manufactures and sells, inter alia, a skin care product line, which includes a product in the form of gel, under the NEOPROSONE trademark. The Complainant’s NEOPROSONE products are sold through the Complainant’s website, as well as through third party platf orms such as Amazon and through its authorized distributors. The Complainant’s group owns trademark registrations f or NEOPROSONE, including the United States trademark registration No. 3108357, NEOPROSONE (word), filed on May 30, 2000, and registered on June 27, 2006, f or goods in international class 3 and the International trademark registration No. 1458321, NEOPROSONE (wo rd ), registered on October 22, 2018, f or goods in international classes 3 and 5. The disputed domain name was registered on March 14, 2026, and leads to a website (the Website) prominently using the Complainant’s NEOPROSONE trademark and copying product imagery. The Website incorporates the “Neoprosone Glow with Conf idence” digital marketing banner, product descriptions, marketing language, and copyrighted images from the Complainant’s authorized storefront on Amazon.com. In the Terms and Conditions on the Website it is claimed that “https://neoprosonegel.com/ and/or its licensors own the intellectual property rights in all material on https://neoprosonegel.com/”. The Respondent’s “Best Sellers” row includes a third-party product of a Complainant’s competitor. Clicking on any of the “Shop Now” icons under the purported “Best Seller” items redirects users to the exact same static Product Listing page from which there is no physical method or programming mechanism to actually f inalize a purchase. The Respondent lists fabricated operational metrics, such as “30,000+ sales per year”, “8,000+ reviews”, “345+ partnerships”, and “9+ years of experience”, o n the Website at the disputed domain name, which was only acquired within the past calendar year. The Website lists an address localized to a non- existent location in the United States and an unverified contact phone number. When called, the number is entirely unreachable, triggering a generic carrier message stating the line has been disconnected. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 f aith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, along with the term “gel”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded in the case, as gTLDs typically do not f orm part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No . D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No . D2002-0122, see also WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1). The Panel f inds the f irst 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. 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 dif f icult 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. On the contrary, as the Complainant has demonstrated, the disputed domain name resolves to the Website, which f eatures the Complainant’s trademark and displays the Complainant’s product images, as well as copyrighted material, while purporting to offer the Complainant’s products f or sale. A d istrib uto r o r reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and thus have a legitimate interest in a domain name only if the f ollowing cumulative requirements are met (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2001-0903; WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1): (i) respondent must actually be of f ering the goods at issue; (ii) respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that ref lect the trademark. These requirements are not cumulatively fulfilled in the present case. Per the Complaint, the Respondent is not an af filiated entity or an authorized distributor or reseller of the Complainant and no agreement, express or otherwise, exists allowing the use of the Complainant’s trademarks on the Website and the use of the page 4 disputed domain name by the Respondent. Further, the Website does not accurately and prominently display any disclaimer of the Respondent’s lack of relationship with the Complainant. On the contrary, it includes wording that appropriates intellectual property rights of the Complainant. The Website f urthermore of fers also t hird-party competing products and it is impossible to verify whether actual sales of the purported Complainant’s products take place. Moreover, the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it may suggest that the Web s ite is the official site of the Complainant f o r NEOPROSONE products, o r is operated by an entity af f iliated to, or endorsed by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity, here, claimed passing of f , can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel also notes the fact that the disputed domain name was registered with a privacy service to hide the Respondent’s identity. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad f aith. Because the NEOPROSONE mark had been widely used and registered by the Complainant at the time of the disputed domain name registration by the Respondent, and the Respondent used the Complainant’s mark on the Website, the Panel f inds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. As regards bad faith use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant has demonstrated that it was used to create the Website which prominently displays the Complainant’s registered trademark, as well as product images and copyrighted material, thereby giving the false impression that it is operated by the Complainant, or a company af f iliated to the Complainant, or an authorized dealer of the Complainant. The disputed domain name operated therefore by intentionally creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s trademark and business as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the websites they resolved to, for the Respondent’s commercial gain. This can be used in support of bad faith registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No . D2017-0311; Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No . D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v. Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No . D2016-1607; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No . DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed passing off, constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <neoprosonegel.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: July 27, 2026

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