Marcalpaper.net

The timeline behind marcalpaper.net

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 Marcal Paper v. Jenna Powell, mercal Case No. D2026-2583 1. The Parties Complainant is Marcal Paper, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Soteria LLC, United States. 1 Respondent is Jenna Powell, mercal, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <marcalpaper.net> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 12, 2026. On June 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 15, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 9, 2026. 1 The Complainant identified itself as “Marcal Paper” in the Complaint, while the trademark registration provided by the Complainant is registered by “Marcal Manufacturing, LLC”. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 is a prominent industry leader in manufacturing high-quality paper products such as “paper towels, paper tissues, and paper napkins”. Complainant produces recycled paper products from de-inked, recycled fibers; thereby, protecting our most valuable resources. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark MARCAL (hereinafter the “MARCAL Mark”). Complainant is mainly known “Marcal Paper”, and its website is located at the domain name <marcalpaper.com>. Complainant is the owner of the following registration for the MARCAL Mark: United States Registration No. 3,903,504 for MARCAL registered January 11, 2011 in class 16. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 3, 2026 and has been enrolled in a mail exchange (MX) allowing for the sending and receiving of email. A couple of days after its registration, the Disputed Domain Name was used to impersonate Complainant in a fraudulent email scheme targeting Complainant’s clients. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MARCAL Mark and provides the false impression of being associated with the “Marcal” brand name. Complainant further contends that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Complainant submits that Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to register or use the MARCAL Mark. Complainant further submits that Respondent neither used the Disputed Domain Name nor provided any proof of preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant further submits that there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has used the Disputed Domain Name for legitimate business purposes. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name has been used to send fraudulent communications impersonating Complainant and targeting its customers. Specifically, email originating from the Disputed Domain Name requested that recipients update banking information and confirm upcoming payments, creating the false impression that the communications were authorized by or affiliated with Complainant. Complainant further alleges that this conduct constitutes phishing and demonstrates an intent to deceive Complainant’s customers. Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s intent is to exploit the goodwill associated with the MARCAL Mark and to facilitate potential payment diversion or fraud. 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 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 MARCAL 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 MARCAL 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 mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MARCAL Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the word “paper”, 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 MARCAL 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 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 illegitimate activity, here claimed as passing off, phishing and email 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 the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Policy paragraph 4(b) 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 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 mark from reflecting the 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 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 fact that Respondent engaged in a phishing expedition of Complainant’s customers shortly after registering the Disputed Domain Name indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MARCAL Mark. This supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as passing off, phishing and email 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 <marcalpaper.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2026

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