Kobalthotsales.com

The timeline behind kobalthotsales.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 LF, LLC v. Brodyers Constance Case No. D2026-3290 1. The Parties Complainant is LF, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Markmonitor Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Brodyers Constance, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kobalthotsales.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2026. On July 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 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”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to 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. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 31, 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 August 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 31, 2026. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a multinational company based in the United States. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered “power tools” and related products under the mark KOBALT. Complainant owns trademark registrations for its KOBALT mark in jurisdictions globally. These include, among others, United States Registration No. 2695975 (registered March 11, 2003) and International Registration No. 833855 (registered December 22, 2003). The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2025. Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to offer Complainant’s KOBALT products, including prominent display of Complainant’s KOBALT mark and associated logo without any disclaimer of affiliation. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the KOBALT mark for “power tools” and related products. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates-in -full Complainant’s KOBALT mark, with only the addition of the descriptive dictionary terms “hot sales”. Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is highly similar to Complainant’s own domain name <kobalt.com> which redirects to a “dedicated storefront” at “www.lowes.com/b/kobalt”. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, and no authorization to use Complainant’s marks. Rather, Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain, by creating a website “used to impersonate” Complainant, intended to “mislead” consumers into buying what are likely “counterfeit” versions of Complainant’s KOBALT products. 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 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the KOBALT mark which is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Although the addition of other terms (here, “hot sales”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term[s] 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. page 3 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 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. Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13. Here, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer Complainant’s KOBALT products, and does not appear to include a disclaimer of affiliation or endorsement by Complainant, and rather includes unauthorized display of Complainant’s marks and language suggesting an affiliation with Complainant. Such intentionally misleading use does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, Respondent has not put forward any claims or evidence that would suggest rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the record includes evidence that Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to offer Complainant’s own KOBALT products, with prominent display of Complainant’s marks, and with no disclaimer of affiliation. The Panel thus finds sufficient evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights and Complainant’s marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. 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 <kobalthotsales.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: September 16, 2026

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