Mascoproducts.com

The timeline behind mascoproducts.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 Masco Corporation v. Marcus Self, MDF TRANSPORTATION LLC Case No. D2026-3591 1. The Parties Complainant is Masco Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Marcus Self, MDF TRANSPORTATION LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mascoproducts.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2026. On August 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 14, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to Complainant on August 14, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 21, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 11, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 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 According to the Complaint: “The Complainant is an American designer, manufacturer and distributor of decorative architectural products and plumbing products. These products include architectural coatings and exterior wood care products; glass shower doors and shower accessories; decorative and outdoor lighting; cabinet, door and window hardware; faucets; spas, exercise pools and fitness systems; showerheads and handheld showers; bathtubs, shower bases and shower enclosures; and toilets.” “The Complainant was founded in 1929 as Masco Screw Products Company. Today the Complainant owns over 100 subsidiaries, operates 42 manufacturing facilities of which 30 are in North America, and employs approximately 18,000 people around the globe.” Complainant holds various trademark registrations for MASCO in various jurisdictions, including: United Kingdom Reg. No. UK00903496858, registered on July 4, 2007; European Union Reg. No. 003496858, registered on July 4, 2007; and India Reg. No. 1613006, registered on October 18, 2007. Complainant operates its official corporate website at “www.masco.com”. The Domain Name was registered on May 14, 2026. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website and instead resolves to the Registrar’s parking page. According to Complainant, and as corroborated by screenshot evidence annexed to the Complaint, “disputed domain name’s zone file is configured with Mail eXchanger (‘MX’) and Sender Policy Framework (‘SPF’) records, which means it can be used for email communication”. Complainant alleges further: “The Complainant was alerted to the existence of the disputed domain name by an external logistics company, as the disputed domain name was used to impersonate one of the Complainant’s employees while attempting to procure services.” Respondent has not denied any of the foregoing allegations or disputed any of Complainant’s evidence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: page 3 (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes, on this undisputed record, Complainant has rights in the trademark MASCO through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name incorporates the MASCO mark and adds the descriptive word “products”. Despite the additional word, the Panel finds that Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel notes that the Domain Name does not resolve to any active website and Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case, therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Moreover, Respondent has not come forward to dispute Complainant’s allegation that Respondent has used the Domain Name to create a fictitious email address and impersonate one of Complainant’s employees. The failure to rebut a plausible allegation of a serious misdeed strikes the Panel as unlikely if Respondent had an innocent and legitimate reason for registering the Domain Name. The Panel concludes that Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or page 4 (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes, on this undisputed record, that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant’s marks were registered years before the registration of the Domain Name, which incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, together with a term closely related to Complainant’s business. Although the Domain Name has not been actively used, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark, 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. The Panel further notes that Complainant asserts that Respondent has used the Domain Name for the purpose of creating a bogus email address and thereby impersonating Complainant’s employee but unfortunately, Complainant was unable to obtain evidence of phishing emails as stated in the Complaint. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section on this point. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name <mascoproducts.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: September 25, 2026

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