Peekaboonannies.com

The timeline behind peekaboonannies.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Peekaboo Nannies-FZCO v. Muhammad Kashif Majeed, Micro Tech Soft Case No. D2026-2647 1. The Parties The Complainant is Peekaboo Nannies-FZCO, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented internally. The Respondent is Muhammad Kashif Majeed, Micro Tech Soft, Pakistan, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <peekaboonannies.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 17, 2026. On June 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 23, 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 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2026. The Respondent sent two email communications on July 2, and July 11, 2026, proposing a settlement. The proceeding was suspended from July 16, 2026, until August 16, 2026, per the Complainant’s request, and reinstituted on August 25, 2026. The Response due date was then recalculated to August 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on September 3, 2026. The Center appointed Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu as the sole panelist in this matter on September 8, 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 The Complainant is a Free Zone Company under the laws of the UAE. It holds the trade license no. 7252, issued by the Dubai Integrated Economic Zones Authority on April 15, 2021. The Complainant provides nanny recruitment, childcare placement, and domestic employment services. The Complainant operates an online recruitment marketplace through its principal website at <peekaboo-nannies.com>, which was registered on February 1, 2021. The Complainant owns the UAE trademark registration No. 465719 for PEEKABOO NANNIES (word and stylized device mark), applied for registration on November 11, 2025, and registered on March 13, 2026. The Complainant also submits that it holds well-established common law trademark rights in the PEEKABOO NANNIES trademark dating back to 2021, by virtue of continuous and exclusive commercial use in the UAE since April 2021, operation of its principal website since February 2021, acquired distinctiveness and substantial goodwill in the UAE nanny recruitment market, and its use of a distinctive stylized wordmark and baby-face device that has become recognized as identifying the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2024. At the time of filing the Complaint and this Decision, it resolves to a website that promotes cleaning, housekeeping and child-caring services. The same website also displays third-party advertising and a logo very similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The record includes several communications sent by the Respondent to the Complainant beginning in March 2025 for the sale of the disputed domain name. In particular, in his email dated April 15, 2026, the Respondent notes the following: “I’m selling peekaboonannies.com (Inspired by You), a UAE-targeted childcare & nanny platform domain + website, for a quick close.” Moreover, in his email dated May 2, 2026, the Respondent notes the following: “We’re selling Peekaboo Nannies – peekaboonannies.com, for a quick close. Since it’s inspired by your brand, you’re obviously the best prospect.” 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. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Notably, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s own characterizations of the disputed domain name as “inspired by your company”, “inspired by your brand”, and “Inspired by You”, repeated in writing across multiple communications, are unambiguous admissions that the disputed domain name was registered with knowledge of and targeting the Complainant’s pre-existing rights. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit any formal Response. However, the Respondent sent two email communications on July 2, and July 11, 2026. In his first email communication, the Respondent stated that he is communicating directly with the Complainant to explore a possible settlement. In his second email communication, the Respondent noted that “After careful consideration, we do not wish to contest this Complaint. We consent to the transfer of the domain name peekaboonannies.com to the Complainant, Peekaboo Nannies-FZCO.” page 3 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel notes that in his email communication dated July 11, 2026, the Respondent has stated its decision not to contest the Complaint and presented its unilateral and unequivocal consent to the remedy requested by the Complainant. In this regard, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.10 notes the following: “How do panels handle cases involving a respondent’s informal or unilateral consent for the transfer of the domain name to the complainant outside the “standard settlement process” described above? Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the “standard settlement process” described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis). In some cases, despite such respondent consent, a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits. Scenarios in which a panel may find it appropriate to do so include (i) where the panel finds a broader interest in recording a substantive decision on the merits – notably recalling UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii) discussing a pattern of bad faith conduct, (ii) where while consenting to the requested remedy the respondent has expressly disclaimed any bad faith, (iii) where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision on the merits, (iv) where there is ambiguity as to the scope of the respondent’s consent, or (v) where the panel wishes to be certain that the complainant has shown that it possesses relevant trademark rights.” In the present case, considering WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10, and the Respondent’s email dated July 11, 2026, the Panel finds that the Respondent has clearly and expressly given its consent on the record for the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Under these circumstances, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant based on the Respondent’s recorded consent. Moreover, in light of WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10, and the contents of the Respondent’s pre-Complaint communications and email dated July 11, 2026, mentioned above, the Panel also finds that the circumstances of the present case do not necessitate a fully reasoned decision on the merits. 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 <peekaboonannies.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu/ Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu Sole Panelist Date: September 22, 2026

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