Serta-mattress.com

The timeline behind serta-mattress.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 Serta, Inc. v. Maxim Smirnov Case No. D2026-2833 1. The Parties The Complainant is Serta, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, United States. The Respondent is Maxim Smirnov, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <serta-mattress.com> is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown (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 3, 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 (unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 3, 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 July 8, 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 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 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 company that has been active in the manufacturing and sales of mattresses in the United States since at least August 10, 1938 under the brand SERTA. The Complainant owns numerous US trademark registrations which consist, in all or in part, of the term SERTA, all registered in relation to mattresses, such as: - United States Reg. No. 582463 that was registered on November 17, 1953 in International Class 20 with a first use in commerce as of August 10, 1938; - United States Reg. No. 582464 that was registered on November 17, 1953 in International Class 20 with a first use in commerce as of August 10, 1938; - United States Reg. No. 908014 SERTAPEDIC that was registered on February 16, 1971 in Internaional Class 20, with a first use in commerce as of January 1, 1951; The Complainant carries out its online activities under the domain name <serta.com>, that was registered on June 17, 1997, On March 18, 2026, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name leads to a website that reproduces the SERTA trademark on several occasions and purports to sell “serta mattresses”. Each link to shop for mattresses however redirects to an Amazon storefront page. 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 trademark SERTA as it entirely incorporates such trademark and that the addition of the descriptive term “mattress”, which relates to the core activity of the Complainant. The Complainant then affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent and has never authorized him to use its SERTA trademarks in any way. The use made of the disputed domain name, which consists of a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks to redirect consumers to an Amazon storefront page, does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant finally is of the view that the disputed domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant to advertise mattresses and to redirect traffic to a third-party website. Such registration and use have thus been made in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “[...] decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 here, “-mattresses”, 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 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. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for an illegal activity, here the impersonation of the Complainant to mislead consumers into having them believe that the disputed domain name and related website are affiliated with the Complainant, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name leads to a website that purports to sell SERTA mattresses and reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks on numerous accounts. 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 an illegal activity, here the impersonation of the Complainant’s trademark to mislead consumers into having them believe that the disputed domain name and related website with commercial affiliate links are affiliated with the Complainant, 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. 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 <serta-mattress.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Philippe Gilliéron/ Philippe Gilliéron Sole Panelist Date: August 11, 2026

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