Comentiy.net

The timeline behind comentiy.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 Bread Financial Payments, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd Case No. D2026-2709 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bread Financial Payments, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <comentiy.net> is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2026. On June 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 25, 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 (Registrant Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 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 an amendment to the Complaint on July 3, 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 July 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 The Complainant is a Delaware (United States) corporation headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, United States. The Complainant is a financial services company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bread Financial Holdings Inc., a publicly traded financial services company founded in 1996. The Complainant provides banking and credit card services, as well as online financing and consumer loans. Beginning in November 2011, the Complainant (then known as ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.) began using the COMENITY mark in connection with banking and financing services, through its wholly owned subsidiary Comenity LLC. The Complainant has continued to use the COMENITY mark and the “Comenity” trade name since November 2011. The Complaint states that COMENITY is a fanciful mark with no known meaning other than functioning as the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant currently has two wholly owned subsidiaries operating under the “Comenity” trade name: Comenity Bank and Comenity Capital Bank. The Complainant owns the domain names <comenity.com> and <comenity.net>, which redirect to the Complainant’s principal website at “www.breadfinancial.com”, which is linked to the Complainant’s social media sites. The Complainant’s COMENITY mark is prominently featured on the website and on these social media sites. The Complainant’s financial services are advertised and offered throughout the United States and are regulated by federal and state authorities. The Complainant claims common law rights in the COMENITY mark and also holds United States Trademark Registration Number 4154883 (registered June 5, 2012) for COMENITY as a word mark in International Classes 35 and 36. The application was filed on November 10, 2010, claiming first use in commerce on November 14, 2011. The disputed domain name was created on May 31, 2012, and is registered to the Respondent “Host Master” of Transure Enterprise Ltd, listing a postal address in Wilmington, Delaware, United States and a contact email address at “[xxx]@transureent.com”. The Panel notes that at the time of this Decision, the domain name associated with the Respondent’s contact email address redirects to a landing page inviting visitors to download discounted (and unnamed) antivirus software, without identifying the source or the website operator. The Panel notes further that the online database of the Delaware Secretary of State has no record of a “Transure Enterprise Ltd”. 1 At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a “scareware” landing page pretending to originate with a well-known security company, announcing that the visitor’s computer is infected with a virus, and enticing the visitor to download an antivirus scan. (See Wikipedia article, “Scareware”). The site also infects the user’s browser with pop-up scareware messages. The Complainant demonstrates with a Domain Name System checker that the disputed domain name has been configured with mail exchange records so that it can be used for email accounts. 1 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 Panel notes that it is likely that the Respondent is not the original registrant of the disputed domain name. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has multiple archived screenshots associated with the disputed domain name over the years since its creation in 2012, including, for example, a screenshot of a landing page offering the disputed domain name for sale in January 2022. At some point in 2024 the disputed domain name began redirecting to lengthy URLs as it does currently. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is “an obvious and intentional misspelling” of the Complainant’s registered and common law COMENITY mark, which the Respondent has no permission to use. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the Respondent is not known by a corresponding name and has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide commercial offering or legitimate or noncommercial fair use. The Complainant argues that its mark was distinctive and well-known by the time the disputed domain name was registered in an instance of obvious typosquatting. The Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine in support of a finding of bad faith (at the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website) and expresses concern that the disputed domain name could be used for fraudulent phishing emails. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark, the registered COMENITY word mark, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds it likely that the Complainant has established unregistered service mark rights in COMENITY for the purposes of the Policy, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3, but this finding is not necessary for the first Policy element given the registered mark. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, which merely inverts the letters “i” and “t” in a coined term. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7, 1.9. 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 4 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent lacks permission from the trademark holder or a corresponding name, and the disputed domain name has been used only for illicit purposes. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here involving the distribution of malware, 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 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. These include paragraph 4(b)(iv), intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. This was not apparent at the time the Complaint was filed but was the case by the time of this Decision, where the disputed domain name redirected to a “scareware” landing page. In the present case, the Panel notes, as recounted above, that the archived screen captures indicate that the Respondent was not likely the original registrant of the disputed domain name. The record suggests that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name perhaps in 2024, or perhaps at some point before, but seemingly at least well after 2012, by which time the Complainant’s mark was in use and long established. Even in 2012, however, it is difficult to explain why anyone other than the Complainant would select the disputed domain name other than in contemplation of the Complainant’s coined mark, which was distinctive and advertised even at that time for consumer financial services offered throughout the United States. Moreover, the Respondent has been involved in a number of UDRP proceedings with decisions resulting in transfer, including decisions involving similar conduct as encountered here (see, e.g., Kyndryl, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2026-1513). The Panel also notes that the Respondent’s registration details, including an evidently non-existent company with a website that also appears to solicit visitors to download suspicious “antivirus” software, as well as the misspelling of the Complainant’s coined trademark in the disputed domain name (which is also almost identical to the Complainant’s <comenity.net> domain name), reinforces the inference of bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name. 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here involving malware distribution, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. page 5 The Panel finds that the 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 <comentiy.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: August 26, 2026

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