Hephastore.shop

The timeline behind hephastore.shop

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 Hepha GmbH v. Matthew Day Case No. D2026-2789 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hepha GmbH, Germany, internally represented. The Respondent is Matthew Day, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hephastore.shop> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 29, 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 29, 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 amended Complaint on June 30, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrea Cappai as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 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 HEPHA GmbH, a German limited liability company based in Maisach, Germany. The Complainant develops, manufactures, and distributes electric bicycles, electric motorcycles, and related components and parts, and provides related services. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations, among others: HEPHA (figurative) – European Union trademark registration number 018870121 – registered on August 17, 2023 – International Class 12; and HEPHA (figurative) – United States trademark registration number 7,618,225 – registered on December 24, 2024 – International Class 12. The Complainant operates the domain name <hepha.com>, which is used for its official website and in connection with the promotion of its electric bicycles and related goods. The disputed domain name was registered on May 13, 2026. The record shows that the disputed domain name resolved to a website which appeared to operate as an online shop. The pages shown display the HEPHA sign and contain listings for electric bicycles and accessories, together with displayed prices and shopping functionality. The record also shows a page headed “About HEPHA” and a contact page displaying an email address ending in “@hepha.com”. The Respondent appears to be an individual located in the United States. Apart from the Registrar-provided registration details, the record contains no further information concerning the Respondent. 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 confusingly similar to its HEPHA mark because it reproduces the textual element “HEPHA” in its entirety, with the addition of the term “store”, while the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the HEPHA mark, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no relationship between the Parties that could provide a basis for such use. The Complainant further contends that the associated website was commercial in nature, displayed the HEPHA sign, and presented electric bicycles and accessories under that sign, and that such use did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. page 3 Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that its trademark rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name, that HEPHA is a distinctive term, and that the composition of the disputed domain name and the content of the associated website demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the goods presented there, and that the disputed domain name was registered and used to divert potential customers from the Complainant’s official channels and disrupt its business. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, such as “store” 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 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 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 recognised 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. page 4 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 Complainant states that it has not authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the HEPHA mark or to register a domain name incorporating that mark. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name combines the HEPHA mark with the term “store” in the “.shop” gTLD. In the circumstances of this case, the combination of the mark with two elements associated with online retail activity is apt to suggest an online retail channel operated or authorised by the Complainant and therefore carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. That risk is reinforced by the manner in which the disputed domain name was used. The associated website appeared to operate as an online shop and prominently displayed the HEPHA sign. The pages shown in the record contain listings for electric bicycles and accessories, together with displayed prices and shopping functionality. The website also included a page headed “About HEPHA” and a contact page displaying an email address ending in “@hepha.com”. No disclaimer or other disclosure indicating that the website was operated independently of the Complainant is apparent from the pages shown in the record. Taken together, the composition of the disputed domain name and the manner in which the associated website was presented gave the false appearance of an official or authorised HEPHA online shop. Such circumstances do not support a claim to fair use and are not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. 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. In the present case, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant had obtained registered trademark rights in HEPHA. The disputed domain name combines the textual element “HEPHA” with the retail-related term “store” under the “.shop” gTLD. Taken as a whole, that composition is apt to be understood as referring to a HEPHA online shop. The structure of the disputed domain name itself therefore supports an inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark at the time of registration. The manner in which the disputed domain name was used confirms the inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark. The associated website prominently displayed the HEPHA ign and appeared to operate as an online shop. The pages shown in the record contain listings for electric bicycles and accessories, together with displayed prices and shopping functionality. The website also included a page headed “About HEPHA” and a contact page displaying an email address ending in “@hepha.com”. No disclaimer or other disclosure indicating that the website was operated independently of the Complainant is apparent from the pages shown in the record. page 5 The combination of the disputed domain name and the manner in which the website was presented created the false impression that it was an official or authorised HEPHA online shop. The Panel considers that this presentation could not reasonably have arisen independently or by coincidence and finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant and its HEPHA mark in mind. By using the disputed domain name in this manner, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and of the goods presented there. 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 <hephastore.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Cappai/ Andrea Cappai Sole Panelist Date: August 14, 2026

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