Thepinkpig.fun

The timeline behind thepinkpig.fun

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 The Pink Pig SA, Jorge Pork Meat, SL v. neil mc, The pig Case No. D2026-3282 1. The Parties The Complainants are The Pink Pig SA (“First Complainant”) and Jorge Pork Meat, SL (“Second Complainant”), both of Spain, represented by Integra, Spain. The Respondent is neil mc, The pig, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thepinkpig.fun> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2026. On July 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 27, 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 (HIDDEN for Privacy reasons) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 28, 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 29, 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2026. The Respondent sent an informal communication on August 1, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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 Complainants are part of a large Spanish meat producing company group. The First Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Second Complainant. The Second Complainant is the owner of the European Union Trademark Registration No. 018021517, registered on October 28, 2020, for THE PINK PIG GRUPO JORGE (with figurative elements), covering protection for various goods and services in classes 29, 35, and 39. The First Complainant has further registered the domain name <thepinkpig.es>, which redirects users to the Complainants’ group of companies’ main website at the domain name <jorgesl.com>. The First and Second Complainants in this administrative proceeding will jointly be referred to as “the Complainant” in the following, whenever appropriate. The Respondent is reportedly located in Malaysia. The disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2026, and apparently has not resolved to an active website since then. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the cancellation of the disputed domain name and contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for the requested cancellation of the disputed domain name. The Complainant particularly contends that the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names comprising the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal response. However, in his email communication to the Center on August 1, 2026, the Respondent provided his explicit consent to the cancellation of the disputed domain name. Literally, the Respondent stated in its email communication to the Center: “I confirm that I consent to the cancellation of the disputed domain name, as requested by the Complainants.” 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and page 3 (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views captured therein. A. Consent to Cancellation The Panel notes that even without a formal settlement between the Parties, a consent for the cancellation of the disputed domain name by the Respondent can provide sufficient basis for an order for cancellation without the need for substantial consideration of the UDRP grounds and the further merits of the case. In view of WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10, a panel may “order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent”. In its email communication to the Center of August 1, 2026, the Respondent unambiguously expressed his willingness and consent to the cancellation of the disputed domain name as requested by the Complainant. The fact that no settlement has been concluded between the Parties, does in view of the Panel, not affect the effectiveness of the Respondent’s unilateral consent to the cancellation of the disputed domain name. B. Conclusion The Panel notes that despite the Respondent’s consent to the cancellation of the disputed domain name, the Complainant understood the administrative proceeding should continue. In any event, the Panel does not find any circumstances calling for a decision on the merits and rather considers it appropriate in this case to order the cancellation of the disputed domain name based on the Respondent’s consent and exceptionally renders its Decision in summary form. 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 <thepinkpig.fun> be cancelled. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: September 8, 2026

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