Sharrkbanz.shop

The timeline behind sharrkbanz.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Mano LLC (d/b/a Sharkbanz) v. hao Chen Case No. D2026-2889 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mano LLC (d/b/a Sharkbanz), United States of America, self-represented. The Respondent is hao Chen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sharrkbanz.shop> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2026. On July 2, 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 verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which dif fered from the named Respondent (See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 6, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on July 7, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on July 28, 2026. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 2026. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a producer of wearable shark-deterrent products and related goods established in 2012. The Complainant owns numerous SHARKBANZ trademarks, including International Trademark No. 1266369 (registered on August 6, 2015). The disputed domain name was registered on June 23, 2026, and resolves to a website displaying the SHARKBANZ trademark and logo and purporting to of f er the Complainant’s products f or sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted any reply 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 (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. A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark f or the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No . D2000-0662). This includes the addition of the letter “r” in the Complainant’s SHARKBANZ trademark, which is considered a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. The Panel f inds that the f irst 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 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 of ten 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of page 3 proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima f acie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds that the composition of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark with an additional letter “r”, coupled with the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website purporting to be affiliated with the Complainant, does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel f inds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition and use of the disputed domain name as described above, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, 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 f aith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the available record and noting the composition of the disputed domain name and the use made thereof, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In particular, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to present itself as the Complainant, while using the Complainant’s trademark and purportedly offering and promoting products under the brand of the Complainant, demonstrates an intention to attract Internet users f or commercial gain by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s trademark. Theref ore, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. 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 orders that the disputed domain name <sharrkbanz.shop> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: August 28, 2026

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