Insightlglobal.com

The timeline behind insightlglobal.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 Insight Global, LLC v. Dynadot Privacy Service, Dynadot, LLC Case No. D2026-3164 1. The Parties Complainant is Insight Global, LLC, United States of America (“U.S.” or “United States”), represented by Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, U.S. Respondent is Dynadot Privacy Service, Dynadot, LLC, U.S. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <insightlglobal.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2026. On July 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 21, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Dynadot, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 21, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 24, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 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 Complainant is an international staffing and services company founded in 2001, has over 60 sales offices worldwide, and places more than 41,000 positions annually. Complainant has been using INSIGHT GLOBAL as a trademark for its services for nearly 25 years and owns at least the following registrations (the “INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks”): Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date INSIGHTGLOBAL United States 35 4,997,327 July 12, 2016 INSIGHT GLOBAL A STAFFING SERVICES COMPANY (DESIGN) United States 35 3,630,697 June 2, 2009 Complainant operates its website at “www.insightglobal.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on June 25, 2026. Complainant provided evidence indicating that, as of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s mark, and advertising services purportedly identical to Complainant’s services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks as evidenced herein, that the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks are famous, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks and simply inserts the letter “l” between the words “insight” and “global,” which does not constitute a distinction. Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is clearly a typosquatting attempt that contains the dominant and distinctive elements of the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks and therefore strongly conveys the impression of sponsorship by or association with Complainant. Complainant contends Respondent should be considered to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts Respondent is not licensed by or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks for any purpose, is not known to own any trademark rights in the disputed domain name, and did not use the disputed domain name as a trademark prior to registration. Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services because Respondent’s website mimics Complainant’s website and is offering competing services; nor is such use a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends the disputed domain name should be considered to have been registered and used in bad faith because: (1) Respondent knew or should have known of the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks at the time page 3 of registration; (2) the disputed domain name is a clear example of typosquatting and is therefore inherently illegitimate; (3) Respondent is operating its website possibly for phishing purposes and to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks in which Complainant has rights as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products offered thereon; (4) The INSIGHT GLOBAL Marks are distinctive, coined phrases that Respondent could not have arrived at independently, especially since the disputed domain name has no apparent meaning on its own; (5) Respondent’s prompt use of the disputed domain name after registration suggests a deliberate attempt to trade on Complainant’s reputation from the outset; and (6) Respondent’s use of a privacy service to mask its identity. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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 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. 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, the letter “l” between “insight” and “global,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating page 4 rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, a claimed passing off website, 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 Respondent’s prompt use of the typosquatting disputed domain name to operate a website mimicking Complainant’s website and offering competing services, possible for phishing purposes, is clear evidence of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) 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 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 illegal activity here, a claimed passing off website, 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 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 <insightlglobal.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: September 22, 2026

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