Nzepouches.shop

The timeline behind nzepouches.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION NZE, LLC v. SIMPSON KIMBERLEY Case No. D2026-3394 1. The Parties The Complainant is NZE, LLC, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Bernstein Shur, USA. The Respondent is SIMPSON KIMBERLEY, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nzepouches.shop> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2026. On August 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 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 (Privacy service provided by PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 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 filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 18, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2026. The Center appointed Bradley A. Slutsky as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Wyoming limited liability company located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. The Complainant has a website at “www.nzepouches.com”, from which the Complainant sells “nicotine-free performance pouches”. The Complainant has been selling these pouches using the NZE mark since at least as early as July 31, 2024. The Complainant has a USA trademark registration for NZE – Registration Number 7,996,037, registered October 21, 2025 – in international class 5 for “dietary and nutritional supplements in the form of oral pouches; Caffeine preparations for stimulative use in the form of oral pouches”. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 17, 2026. The annexes to the Complaint contain a screenshot of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name. The website purports to offer the Complainant’s pouches for sale. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name “is identical to the Complainant’s trademark in that it uses the Complainant’s trademark NZE in bad faith and without a legitimate interest”. The Complainant further contends that “[t]he Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the [disputed] domain name because it has no right to use the trademark NZE, let alone in association with a website that is fraudulently advertising counterfeits of the products sold by [the] Complainant. The Respondent’s website available at the domain name uses [the] Complainant’s images and identical product packaging creating the risk that consumers will confuse the Respondent’s website with the official website provided by the Complainant. Upon information and belief, the Respondent is collecting funds for sales of these counterfeit products and not shipping any products at all.” The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights, and “is clearly attempting to deceive and confuse consumers into believing the website provided at the [disputed] domain name is offered by the Complainant and such use is not fair use and is for the Respondent’s own commercial gain.” Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in that, with no rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s NZE trademark “in association with a website that is fraudulently advertising counterfeits of the products sold by [the] Complainant” and is using the Complainant’s product images and packaging to “confuse the Respondent’s website with the official website provided by the Complainant.” The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent makes sales from the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name but does not ship the purchased products, and that “[t]he Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights and offerings under the NZE trademark prior to registering the domain name as is reflected by the unauthorized manner in which it has used the domain name to provide a confusingly similar website and counterfeit products”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, a panel in UDRP proceedings “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”. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 entirety of the Complainant’s NZE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s entire NZE mark, plus the word “pouches”, plus the “.shop” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Because the Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7 (“in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark ... the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.”). The “.shop” gTLD “is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Although the addition of other terms, here “pouches”, 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 (“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Accordingly, 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 a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [the Respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the [disputed] domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or page 4 (ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [the Respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s NZE mark, yet has used the mark to register the disputed domain name and create a website at the disputed domain name that mimics the Complainant’s website, copies images and product packaging from the Complainant’s website, and purports to offer the Complainant’s products for sale, and then (allegedly, and not rebutted by the Respondent) does not deliver the products after they have been paid for. “Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., ... copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. “Evidence that ... the respondent has misappropriated copyrighted images from the complainant’s website ... [has] been found relevant in this regard.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.2. These circumstances also indicate that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to trade on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s marks, rather than to undertake activity associated with a name by which the Respondent has been commonly known or to engage in bona fide, noncommercial, or fair use activities. Accordingly, 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. Specifically, “the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or [the Respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the Respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs page 5 directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] website or location.” 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name approximately two years after the Complainant began selling its oral pouch supplements and nearly nine months after the registration of the Complainant’s NZE mark. The disputed domain name also combines the Complainant’s mark with the word “pouches”, which describes the Complainant’s goods, is part of the registered trademark description for the Complainant’s goods, and is used by the Complainant itself in its own website domain name (and thus, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s domain name, but for the substitution of the “.shop” gTLD in place of the “.com” gTLD). The Complainant also alleges (and the annexes to the Complaint support) that the Respondent’s website copies the product images and packaging from the Complainant, prominently uses the NZE mark, and purports to offer the Complainant’s products for sale, and (the Respondent does not rebut) “is collecting funds for sales of these counterfeit products and not shipping any products at all.” The Panel also notes that the name of the Respondent as registered with the registrar for the disputed domain name differs from the name in the email address registered with the registrar for the disputed domain name and also differs from the names of the owners of the property at the address registered with the registrar for the disputed domain name. This suggests that the Respondent used false contact information to register the disputed domain name. “If ... circumstances indicate that the respondent’s intent in registering the disputed domain name was in fact to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit the complainant’s trademark, panels will find bad faith on the part of the respondent. Although panel assessment remains fact-specific, generally speaking such circumstances, alone or together, include: (i) the respondent’s likely knowledge of the complainant’s rights, ... [and] (iv) website content targeting the complainant’s trademark ...”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.1. See also WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4 (“Panels have moreover found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark ... redirecting the domain name to or mimicking the complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website”). The use of false contact information and the failure to submit a response also can be evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The failure to submit a response is particularly notable in a case where one is accused of selling products and collecting money from those sales without ever delivering the products. Further, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity – here claimed to be copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud – 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. page 6 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 <nzepouches.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Bradley A. Slutsky/ Bradley A. Slutsky Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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