25percentinjurylawyer.com

The timeline behind 25percentinjurylawyer.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 My 25% Lawyer P.C. v. malik shabazz, black lawyers for justice Case No. D2026-2830 1. The Parties The Complainant is My 25% Lawyer P.C., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Thomas & LoCicero PL, United States. The Respondent is malik shabazz, black lawyers for justice, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <25percentinjurylawyer.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2026. On June 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 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 July 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 24, 2026. 1 1 The Center transmitted the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding by email to the Respondent at the Respondent’s email address disclosed by the Registrar and at postmaster@25percentinjurylawyer.com, with a copy to the Registrar (which was requested to forward the Notification to the registrant). The email to postmaster@25percentinjurylawyer.com was returned as undeliverable because the domain's DNS was not resolving. The email to the email address confirmed by the Registrar was page 2 The Center appointed David H. Bernstein as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 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 personal injury law firm based in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. The Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 7,021,820 for MY 25% LAWYER, registered on April 11, 2023, in International Class 45, with a claimed date of first use in commerce of November 10, 2018. The Complainant owns the domain name <my25lawyer.com>, registered since 2019, which displays a website prominently featuring the MY 25% LAWYER mark and describing the Complainant’s legal services. The Panel notes that the term “LAWYER” is disclaimed in the registration. The Complainant also owns several related domain names (including <my25percentlawyer.com>, <mytwentyfivelawyer.com>, and <my25lawyerfirm.com>) that redirect to its primary website. The Respondent is identified in the Registrar’s verification response as malik shabazz, with an associated organization of “black lawyers for justice”, located in Washington, D.C. The Respondent is a personal injury attorney who offers his services as “Attorney Malik” or “Attorney Shabazz” and “The People’s Lawyer”. The disputed domain name was registered on December 30, 2024 – more than six years after the Complainant’s mark was first used in commerce and more than five years after the Complainant registered <my25lawyer.com>. At some point in the past, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displayed content advertising personal injury legal services, including a fee-comparison graphic that bears similarities to a similar graphic that is displayed on the Complainant’s website. The graphic from the Complainant’s website is shown below at right; the graphic from the Respondent’s website is shown below at left. successfully relayed. Written Notice was also sent by post to the Respondent's physical address listed with the Registrar. The Panel is satisfied that the Center discharged its notification obligations under Rules, paragraph 2(a). page 3 On April 17, 2026, the Complainant’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent via email, notifying the Respondent of the Complainant’s trademark rights and demanding that the Respondent suspend the disputed domain name and remove content copied from the Complainant’s website. The Respondent did not reply, but at some point, the Respondent removed all content from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name returned a “503 Service Unavailable” error and the disputed domain name’s server IP address could not be found. 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 MY 25% LAWYER mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portions of the mark – “25percent” and “lawyer” – and the addition of the descriptive term “injury” does not distinguish the domain name, as personal injury services are the Complainant’s primary area of practice. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the Complainant’s mark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has no trademark rights in “25percentinjurylawyer”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in an infringing manner that is intended to mimic the Complainant’s branding, pointing to the fee- comparison graphic submitted as Annex 7 (reproduced above) as evidence of copying. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is a direct competitor offering the same type of legal services and has registered and used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant points to the copied fee-comparison graphic as evidence that the Respondent acted with knowledge of and intent to target the Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a Response. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to obtain transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; (ii) the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the Respondent’s default, the Panel shall proceed to decide the Complaint on the basis of the submissions and the evidence before it, drawing such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate. Rules, paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), 14(b). The Panel will generally accept as true those reasonable allegations of fact that are unrebutted, but the Respondent’s default does not automatically mean that the Complainant’s legal or conclusory contentions are deemed accurate; the burden of proof remains on the Complainant. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the MY 25% LAWYER mark for the purposes of the Policy: it has a nationally registered trademark on the Principal Register, which satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Once trademark rights are established, the Panel must consider whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The 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. Here, the Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates a dominant element of the Complainant’s MY 25% LAWYER mark. The domain name renders “25%” as its textual equivalent “25percent” and retains the term “lawyer”. The fact that the term “lawyer” is disclaimed from the registration, and that the symbol “%” is substituted with the term “percent”, does not undermine this analysis given that the “25%” portion of the mark is recognizable in an equivalent fashion. The addition of the term “injury” – which refers to the Complainant’s primary area of practice – also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Finally, the “.com” generic Top- Level Domain is a standard registration requirement and, in appropriate cases, may be disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The only element of the Complainant’s mark absent from the domain name is “my”, a common possessive pronoun that is not itself the dominant component of the mark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances through which a 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 recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult and sometimes impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is 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 disputed domain name. 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. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is a personal injury attorney who, based on the content of his website, charges a 25 percent contingency fee. Although the Respondent would normally be permitted to make descriptive fair use of the term “25 percent” to fairly describe that he charges a 25 percent contingency fee, that does not give the Respondent the right to use the Complainant’s registered trademark in the domain name for a website imitating the Complainant’s branding while offering competing services. The Complainant has persuasively shown that such misappropriation of the Complainant’s branding is exactly what the Respondent has done, including through the near-identical reproduction of the Complainant’s fee- comparison graphic. As the images above show, the Respondent’s fee comparison chart matched the Complainant’s chart in numerous ways, including in format, structure, categories, data values, and visual design. This slavish copying of the Complainant’s graphic demonstrates that the Respondent was not independently describing his own fee structure but rather trading on the Complainant’s branding. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2. In light of the Respondent’s default, the Respondent has not rebutted that showing. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. page 5 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) provides that using a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use. The disputed domain name was registered more than six years after the Complainant’s first use of the mark and more than 18 months after the Complainant obtained its federal registration. The Complainant submitted evidence that the Respondent’s website displayed a fee-comparison graphic copied from the Complainant’s own website – identical in format, categories, data values, and visual design. This strongly supports an inference that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s mark and with the intent to target it. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2. The Respondent then used the disputed domain name to offer personal injury legal services in direct competition with the Complainant, under a confusingly similar domain name, with marketing materials copied from the Complainant’s website. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <25percentinjurylawyer.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /David H. Bernstein/ David H. Bernstein Sole Panelist Date: August 6, 2026

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