Aspenintitutes.org

The timeline behind aspenintitutes.org

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 Aspen Institute Inc v. Name Redacted Case No. D2026-3302 1. The Parties The Complainant is The Aspen Institute Inc, United States of America (“United States”), represented by ZeroFox, United States. The Respondent is Name Redacted. 1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <aspenintitutes.org> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2026. On July 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 1, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 10, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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”). 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST- 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. A third party sent an email communication to the Center on August 18, 2026. On August 31, 2026, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment. The Center appointed Steven Auvil 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of the well-known nonprofit educational and policy organizations founded in 1949 in the United States that conducts conferences, leadership programs, educational initiatives, and public policy work under the ASPEN INSTITUTE name. The Complainant owns United States trademark registration No. 2785888, registered November 25, 2003, for its ASPEN INSTITUTE mark. The Complainant has had longstanding use of the mark in connection with educational, leadership, charitable, and policy-related services, since at least the 1940s. The Complainant maintains its primary web presence at “www.aspeninstitute.org”. The disputed domain name <aspenintitutes.org> was registered on May 21, 2026. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, mail exchange (MX) records have been set up for the disputed domain name. At the time of writing this Decision this website remains inactive. 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. First the Complainant contends that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to its ASPEN INSTITUTE trademark because it incorporates the mark with only a minor typographical variation – replacing “institute” with “intitutes”. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, intending to capitalize on confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel does note that on August 18, 2026, a third party contacted the Center and stated “I am in no way associated with that domain or any of the listed contact information.” page 3 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “[a] Panel shall 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.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain relief: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel is entitled to accept as true the allegations set forth in the Complaint (unless the evidence is clearly contradictory), and to derive reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. The Panel therefore makes the following findings and conclusions based on the allegations and evidence contained in the Complaint and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint. 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 Complainant owns a registered trademark for ASPEN INSTITUTE and has used the name for its nonprofit education and policy work since at least 1949. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ASPEN INSTITUTE mark in a misspelled form as “aspenintitutes”. The Panel finds the mark is still recognizable within the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name is an example of typosquatting. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ASPEN INSTITUTE mark for the purposes of the Policy. Further, as set forth in section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.com” or “.org”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element’s confusing similarity test. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the use of the gTLD “.org” in the disputed domain name has no bearing on the confusing similarity analysis. 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 page 4 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 is not affiliated with the Complainant, has not been authorized to use the ASPEN INSTITUTE mark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. As it did not respond to the Complaint, 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. The Panel finds no evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services, legitimate noncommercial use, or any other basis supporting rights or legitimate interests of Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. Additionally, 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. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for at least for the following reasons. First, as noted above, the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled version of the Complainant’s well-known ASPEN INSTITUTE mark. Panels have consistently found that such typosquatting by itself can create a presumption of bad faith registration and use because it seeks to take advantage of Internet users who inadvertently land on a typosquatted domain name, particularly noting that the disputed domain name is also a misspelled version of the Complainant’s official domain name <aspeninstitute.org>. Second, the record indicates that the Respondent used a third party’s name to register the disputed domain name. The use of apparently false registrant details supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s ASPEN INSTITUTE mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name and likely sought to unfairly capitalize on the mark for possible commercial gain. Although the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, panels have found that the non- use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. page 5 The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under the Policy. Accordingly, 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 <aspenintitutes.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Steven Auvil/ Steven Auvil Sole Panelist Date: September 18, 2026

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