Barrcuda.com

The timeline behind barrcuda.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 Barracuda Networks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Case No. D2026-2739 1. The Parties The Complainant is Barracuda Networks, Inc ., United States of America (“United States”) represented by KXT LAW, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Domain Ad ministrato r, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD , Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <barrcuda.com> is reg istered with Media E lit e Holdings Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitratio n and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2026. On June 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for reg istrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response providing the registrant and contact inf ormation for the disputed domain name. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f o rmal requirements of the Unif o rm Domain Name D is p ute Resolution P olicy (the “P olicy ” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P olicy (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 July 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was J uly 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on July 29, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as t he sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2026. The Panel f inds that it was p ro perly 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 was established in 2003. It operates in the f ield of Inf ormation Technology security, networking and storage appliances, and cloud-based services. The Complainant’s official web site is located at the domain name <barracuda.com>, registered on Ap ril 8, 1998. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for BARRACUDA (the “BARRACUDA trad emark”) including the f ollowing representative registrations: - the United States trad emark BARRACUDA NETWORKS (wo rd) with registration No . 3866379, registered on October 26, 2010 for goods in International Class 9, with claimed date of f irst use in commerce on January 1, 2002. The element “NETWORKS” in this trademark is disclaimed; and - the United States trademark BARRACUDA (wo rd ) with reg istration No . 4715332, registered on Ap ril 7, 2015 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 41 and 42, with claimed dates of f irst use in 2002 and 2003. The disputed domain name was registered on September 24, 2004. When an attempt is currently made to access it, several consecutive automatic red irects take place, and the visitor ultimately arrives at a gambling website. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name has been used for various purposes. Between 2004 - 2016, it was inactive or resolved to s tat ic landing pages, some of them blank, and others displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. In June 2026, the disputed domain name alternatively redirected to vary i ng third-party web sites, including landing pages with PPC links related to the Complainant’s b usiness, account-creation and credential collection pages, commercial pages, and security warnings pages. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has extensively used and advertised the BARRACUDA trademark and the corresponding domain name <barracuda.com> for many years, and they have become well kno wn and recognised by consumers as designating the Complainant as the source of the goods and services of f ered under the BARRACUDA trademark. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BARRACUDA trademark, because it incorporates the dominant and recognisable elements of the trademark. According to the Complainant, the omission of the letter “a” in the disputed domain name is a classic example of typosquatting and does not avoid the conf using similarity with the BARRACUDA trademark. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rig hts or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because the Complainant has never authorised it to use the BARRACUDA trademark or any domain name incorporating the trademark or its typographical misspelling. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not its authorised reseller, distributor or agent, and is not commonly kno wn as“ Barrcud a”. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona f ide of fering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of it. Rather, the page 3 Respondent is using a misspelled version of the Complainant’s BARRACUDA trademark as a traffic-capture device to exploit mistaken users and ro ute them into changing, deceptive, and potentially harmf ul online destinations. The Complainant states that these destinations use traffic captured through a typo of the Complainant’s trademark to solicit user information, generate leads, and expose users to f raud, credential thef t, malware exposure, and scareware-related harm. The Complainant points out that the Respondent’s Barracuda-themed landing page with links including “Barracuda Sp yware Firewall,” “Barracud a Spam and Virus Firewall,” and “Website Protection” sho ws that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant by invoking the subject-matter of the Complainant’s cybersecurity goods and services. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. It points out t hat the disputed domain name is not a d istinct or coincidental t erm, but is an obvious one-letter typographical variation of the Complainant’s BARRACUDA trademark, which the Complainant has used since December 2002, while the disputed domain name was registered in 2004 and updated on December 3, 2025. According to the Complainant, a later acquisition of a domain name may constitute the relevant reg istratio n event where the current respondent uses the domain name in bad f aith. Thus, whether measured f rom the disputed domain name’s original 2004 registration d ate or f ro m any later acquisition by the Respondent, the record supports a finding t hat the disputed domain name was registered in bad f aith. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name previously resolved to simple parked pages, and has recently been reconf igured for active deceptive redirection, which sho ws the Respondent’s actual knowledge and intentional targeting of t he Complainant. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent is using a one-letter typo of the BARRACUDA trademark, selected for its conf using similarity to the Complainant’s trademark, to capture users seeking the Complainant and d ivert them to deceptive, commercial, and potentially harmf ul destinations. B. Respondent The Respondent did not rep ly to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (o r 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 s hown rig hts in respect of the BARRACUDA trademark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds that the BARRACUDA trademark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. As noted in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, a domain name that consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling, referred to as typosquatting) is considered by p anels to be confusingly s imilar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This s t ems from the f act that the domain name contains suf f iciently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. Considering the above, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the BARRACUDA trademark for the purposes of the P olicy . Theref ore, the firs t element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests page 4 Paragraph 4(c) of the P olic y provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rig hts or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the diff icult task of “pro vi ng a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of t he respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a p rima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element s hif ts to the respondent to come f o rward 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 o rward 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 p rima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s p rima facie showing and has not come f o rward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rig hts or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain name appears as an obvious and intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent has not provided any alternative explanation for its composition. It is currently being used for red irectio n of visitors to various unrelated websites, including a landing page containing PPC links related to cybersecurity services, which are identical with or related to the Complainant’s offerings. This supports a conclusion that the disputed domain name is being used to target the Complainant’s trademark for attracting Internet users and exposing them to commercial PPC links to competing or unrelated services for commercial gain. Such use cannot give rise to rig hts or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. The Panel theref ore f inds that 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 reg istratio n and use of a domain name in bad f aith. The disputed domain name was originally registered in 2004, which is 11 years b ef ore the registration of the Complainant’s trademark. As discussed in section 3.8.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, where a respondent reg isters a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad f aith on the part of the respondent. Here however, the Complainant submits that the reg istratio n of the disputed domain name was updated in December 2025, and that its use significantly changed and i nt ensif ied in 2026. According to the Complainant, this is a sign that there was a recent change of control over the disputed domain name. Such situations are d iscussed in section 3.9 of the WIPO O verv i ew 3.1, and there is a consensus among UDRP panelists t hat the transfer of a domain name registration fro m a third p arty to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad f aith. In this case, the Wayback Machine records 1 for the disputed domain name for the period between 2004 and 2016 show that in this period it was inactive or resolved to landing pages with various PPC links or with no content. The evidence submitted by the Complainant sho ws that in 2026 the disputed domain name alternatively redirected to vary i ng third-p arty websites, including landing pages with PPC links related to cybersecurity services, account-creation and credential collection pages, commercial pages, and security 1 https://web.archive.org/web/20040000000000*/http://barrcuda.com/ page 5 warnings pages. This supports the Complainant’s submission that the use of the disputed domain name has significantly changed and intensified in 2026 f ollowing a long period of negligible use, which in turn increases the likelihood that a change of control has taken place. Considering the above and the specific circumstances of t his case, and the fact that the Respondent has not provided any details about the date when it acquired the disputed domain name and has not denied the Complainant’s contentions or evidence, the Panel finds on balance of probabilities that it is mo re likely than not that the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name in bad faith in 2026 and many years af ter the Complainant commenced its cybersecurity business under the brand BARRACUDA and registered it as a trademark in 2010. Furthermore, even if 2004 was considered as the relevant date of reg istratio n, the Panel wo uld still f ind evidence of targeting, on the basis that anyone seeking to register “barracuda” under the “.co m” TLD at that time wo uld have immediately encountered that <barracuda.com> was already registered by the Complainant as f ar back as 1998 - which suggests awareness of and targeting of the Complainant. The Complainant f urther asserts that it had used the BARRACUDA mark since at least December 2002, thus prior to 2004. In any event, the Panel reaffirms its v iew that the disputed domain name was registered in bad f aith by the current Respondent at a mo re recent date. Theref ore, the Panel will consider the Respondent’s current conduct in assessing bad f aith. The disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and creates a risk of implied af f iliation with it. It is currently being used to automatically red irect visitors to many dif f erent websites, including such containing PPC links related to the Complainant’s business, as well as websites that appear to collect personal information or may be distributing malware. Such use of the disputed domain name illegitimately exploits the goodwill of the Complainant’s BARRACUDA trademark and supports a conclusion that by acquiring and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for co mmercial gain, Internet users to it and to competing or possibly dangerous third- p arty content by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trad emark as to the af f iliation or endorsement by the Complainant of such content. This supports a f inding of reg istratio n and use of the disputed domain name in bad f aith under paragraph 4(b )(iv) of the Policy. On this basis, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel o rd ers that the disputed domain name <barrcuda.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: August 4, 2026

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