Montagei.com

The timeline behind montagei.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 Montage Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. JONATHAN MESTINSEK Case No. D2026-3466 1. The Parties The Complainant is Montage Hotels & Resorts, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, United States. The Respondent is JONATHAN MESTINSEK, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <montagei.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2026. On August 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 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 August 12, 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 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 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 a company incorporated in Nevada, United States, that provides hotel, resort, residential condominium, spa, restaurant, and bar services in the United States and internationally. It is the proprietor of numerous trademarks around the world, including the following: - United States Trademark Registration No. 3038275 for MONTAGE (word mark), registered on January 3, 2006, for goods in class 33; - United States Trademark Registration No. 3325069 for MONTAGE (word mark), registered on October 30, 2007, for services in classes 41 and 43; and - United States Trademark Registration No. 3431645 for MONTAGE (word mark), registered on May 20, 2008, for goods in class 29. The Complainant operates its primary business websites at the domain names <montage.com> and <montageinternational.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on June 26, 2026. At the time of the Complaint and of this Decision, it did not resolve to an active website. The record contains evidence that it was used to generate email impersonating an employee of the Complainant and requesting that the recipient use new bank details for future payments. On August 2, 2026, the Complainant contacted the Registrar and hosting provider and requested that all services associated with the disputed domain name be suspended. The record indicates that this request was satisfied. 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 MONTAGE brand identifies luxury hotels, resorts, and residences. It operates properties in desirable locations in Montana, Laguna Beach (California), Palmetto Bluff (South Carolina), Deer Valley (Utah), Healdsburg (California), and Los Cabos (Cabo San Lucas, Mexico). It is planning additional resorts in the Bahamas, Mexico, and Egypt. Established more than 20 years ago, the Complainant has invested considerable resources in developing its MONTAGE marks, which have developed considerable consumer recognition and have become known and recognized by travelers all over the world. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark except for the addition of the letter “i”, which is an attempt to mimic the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Instead, it has been used to generate an email in which the Respondent impersonates an employee of the Complainant and requests that the Complainant’s customer change payment information to make payments to (presumably) the Respondent’s bank account. The similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s domain name used for email communications (namely, <montage.com>) makes the Respondent’s fraudulent email(s) look like a legitimate email from the Complainant. page 3 The Complainant has never consented to the registration of the disputed domain name and has never licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its MONTAGE marks. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Under 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”. 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 Panel finds that the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, followed by the letter “i”. Considering also the use to which the disputed domain name has been put, the Panel finds this composition represents a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. 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 proof always remains on the complainant). page 4 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. The Panel notes there is no evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the record indicates that the disputed domain name was used to generate email impersonating the Complainant’s employee to request that the recipient use new bank details for future payments. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed impersonation and fraud) 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 the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name was registered approximately 20 years after the Complainant first registered rights in its MONTAGE trademark. It reflects a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s mark, adding the letter “i” after the MONTAGE trademark. Under these circumstances, and considering the use to which the disputed domain name has been put, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The evidence indicates that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of the Complainant in an attempt to induce a customer of the Complainant to use new bank details for future payments. Such conduct is clearly probative of bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed impersonation and fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Respondent has provided no good-faith explanation for its actions, nor does the Panel believe any such explanation is plausible. 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 the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <montagei.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/ Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: September 24, 2026

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