Scentstories.com, Scentstory.com

The timeline behind scentstories.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Red Matter Holdings Inc. (d/b/a MiN NEW YORK) v. The Procter & Gamble Company Case No. D2026-2329 1. The Parties The Complainant is Red Matter Holdings Inc. (d/b/a MiN NEW YORK), United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is The Procter & Gamble Company, United States, represented by Luca Barbero, c/o Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <scentstories.com> and <scentstory.com> are registered with CSC Corporate Domains, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 28, 2026. On June 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 3, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 5, 2026. 1 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 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, 1 The Complainant initially filed separate Complaints for each of the disputed domain names. As they were registered by the same Respondent, the Complainant then filed a single Complaint in respect of both domain names as provided in the Rules, paragraph 3(c). page 2 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2026. On July 13, 2026, the Respondent submitted a late Response. The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 The Complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States and headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. According to the online database of the Delaware Division of Corporations, the Complainant was incorporated on July 8, 2020. 2 The company’s current annual filing with the Nevada Secretary of State shows that the Complainant’s president, who serves as the Complainant’s representative in these proceedings, is also the company’s secretary, treasurer, and director; no other officers are listed. It also shows that the company has authorized capital of USD 5. The Complainant does not describe its business or point to an online presence, but the Panel notes that the Complainant operates a website at “www.min.com”, selling “luxury” perfumes “Made in France Born in New York City”. The Complainant holds two United States trademark registrations: Mark Reg. Number Reg. Date International Class SCENT STORIES (word) 4620007 October 14, 2014 3 #SCENTSTORY (word) 5220951 June 13, 2017 3 The registrations claim first use in commerce, respectively, in September 2013 and March 2014. The Panel notes that the word “scent” is disclaimed in the mark SCENT STORIES. The ownership information related to the applications and registrations has changed over the years by recorded assignments. The Panel notes further that the Complainant’s website currently advertises a product labelled SCENT STORIES but not one named #SCENTSTORY. The disputed domain name <scentstory.com> was created on February 25, 2004, and the disputed domain name <scentstories.com> was created on January 27, 2004, and both are registered to the Respondent, The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. As described on its United States website at “www.us.pg.com”, the Respondent is a publicly traded, multinational household products group incorporated in the State of Ohio, United States with fiscal year 2025 net sales of USD 84.3 billion under such well-known brands as FEBREZE, ARIEL, GILETTE, BRAUN, VENUS, PAMPERS, TIDE, DAWN, DOWNY, GAIN, CREST, PANTENE, BOUNTY, ALWAYS, CHARMIN, NYQUIL, and ORAL-B. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. It is undisputed, as recounted by both Parties, that the Respondent registered both disputed domain names in 2004 in connection with an extension of its FEBREZE air freshener product line, offering disks that would “play” different scents every thirty minutes. The Panel notes that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has multiple screen captures of the Respondent’s former website at “www.scentstories.com” in the period 2004-2006, advertising the Respondent’s “Scentstories” product, headed “FEBREZE Scentstories” with the tagline, “play scents like you play music”. 2 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 The Respondent discontinued this product in 2008, redirecting the disputed domain names for a time to its FEBREZE website, although the Respondent attaches evidence that there is still an after-market for the product on platforms such as Ebay.com and Etsy.com. The Parties both refer to the fact that the Respondent previously held United States Trademark Registration Number 3030333 (registered on December 13, 2005, in international classes 3, 5, and 11) for the word mark SCENTSTORIES. This registration was cancelled on October 5, 2012, because the Respondent did not file the next required declaration of use, effectively abandoning the trademark. Similarly, the Respondent documents that it applied for, and in some instances obtained, trademark registrations in other jurisdictions for the word mark SCENTSTORIES, subsequently abandoning those applications or registrations when it discontinued marketing for the related product. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that it holds incontestable United States trademark registrations for the word marks SCENT STORIES and #SCENTSTORY and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar and identical to the respective marks. The Complainant contends that its trademark registrations in 2014 and 2017 constitute “constructive notice” as of the filling date of its applications and asserts that its SCENT STORIES mark was in “active commercial use as of August 1, 2013”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent currently makes no use of the disputed domain names and previously used the disputed domain name <scentstory.com> only to redirect to its FEBREZE website. As for the obvious issue with timing for the element of bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark use, applications, and registrations all come long after the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2004, the Complainant says this: “While Complainant acknowledges that both domain names pre-date these application dates, this temporal sequence does not preclude the UDRP claims at issue. The bad faith analysis for domain names involving passive holding focuses on the totality of circumstances at the time of the complaint, including the continued renewal and retention of domain names that correspond to a third party’s incontestable registered marks”. The Complainant argues that the Respondent acted in bad faith when it renewed the registration of the disputed domain names in 2026, with “constructive or actual notice” of the Complainant’s trademark registrations. The Complainant cites no authority but relies as well on the “passive holding doctrine”, given that there is no current use of the disputed domain names, arguing that the Complainant’s marks are well known, the Respondent had provided no evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible legitimate use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, as the Respondent discontinued its SCENTSTORIES product in 2008. The Complainant states that it communicated its objections to the Respondent, without reply. page 4 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. The Respondent concedes that the Complainant may satisfy the “very low threshold” for establishing confusing similarity with a mark under the first Policy element. However, the Respondent argues that screenshots of its former “Scentstories” website and evidence of its former trademark registrations and applications demonstrate its rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <scentstories.com>, asserting that the similar disputed domain name <scentstory.com> “was registered for defensive purpose being a probable variation of ‘scentstories’”. In any event, the Respondent argues that the disputed domain names were not, and logically could not have been, registered in contemplation of the Complainant’s marks. The earliest of these was not in use until nearly a decade later. “[A]s stated in section 3.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, ‘panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith”. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in connection with the promotion of a branded product and never to target the Complainant. The Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, “since the Complainant knew it could not succeed as to the second and third requirements”, being aware of the Respondent’s prior rights and legitimate interests and the timing problem. The Respondent also states that there was no contact or attempted contact between the Parties before these proceedings, contrary to the Complainant’s assertion. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Matter: Late-Filed Response The Response in the proceedings was due on June 29, 2026, and the Center notified the Respondent of its default on July 6, 2026 (a Thursday). The Response was filed four days later. The email accompanying the Response indicates that counsel was only instructed that day, Monday, July 13, 2026. It is very much to counsel’s credit that this matter was investigated and briefed so rapidly and professionally. However, neither the Response nor the email communication offers an explanation for the Respondent’s failure to reply to communications from the Center or submit a timely Response. Counsel, once instructed, wisely did not request an extension of time to prepare a succinct Response with minimal annexed materials. Given the circumstances of the case, as will be evident, the delay cannot be considered prejudicial. Accordingly, the Panel exercises its discretion to accept the late- filed Response. 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark (the registered word marks SCENT STORIES and #SCENTSTORY) for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 5 The Panel finds these marks are recognizable within the disputed domain names, differing only by the addition or omission of a space, the singular or plural form of “story”, or the “#” symbol. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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. 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. The Respondent claims rights and legitimate interests based on its former SCENTSTORIES trademarks, product line, and website. While the record indicates that these have been discontinued or abandoned for some years, and it is generally accepted that rights or legitimate interests are to be assessed at the time of the filing of the complaint (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.11), the Respondent may well assert residual rights or legitimate interests such as preventing impersonation or damage to its associated FEBREZE brand, especially given that there is still an aftermarket for SCENTSTORIES products. In any event, the Panel does not find it necessary to reach a finding on this element of the Complaint, given the Panel’s finding on the third element below. 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 Complainant does not rely on one of these examples but relies on principles of “constructive notice” and “passive holding” and strains to infer bad faith in circumstances where the Respondent registered the disputed domain names nearly a decade before the Complainant started using the earliest of its marks. Panels have long discredited the theory advanced by the Complainant that bad faith should be assessed at the time when the same respondent most recently renewed a disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.9. In this case, the Respondent could not have targeted the Complainant’s marks when the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2004, because by the Complainant’s own account those marks were not in use until many years later, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Respondent could have known about them in advance. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith targeting the Complainant or its trademark rights because the trademark rights had not accrued at the time that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. page 6 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. The Panel notes in this case that the Complainant is not represented independently by legal counsel, and the Complainant’s president, who acts as its representative, is not listed as a member of the bar of Nevada or New York. Nevertheless, the Complaint acknowledges the apparent difficulty where both disputed domain names pre-date the Complainant’s trademark applications by many years. The Center makes available WIPO Overview 3.1 as a resource, which plainly addresses the timing issue, yet the Complaint cites no authority for the bald assertion that “this temporal sequence does not preclude the UDRP claims at issue”. Moreover, the Complainant asserts bad faith because the Respondent allegedly failed to reply to the Complainant’s communications before filing UDRP complaints. The Respondent denies that any such communications occurred, and the Complainant offers no proof of them. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: July 29, 2026

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