Biolongevitysupps.com

The timeline behind biolongevitysupps.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 TruHlth Holdings Inc. v. IT Support Case No. D2026-3596 1. The Parties The Complainant is TruHlth Holdings Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Emerson, Thomson & Bennett LLC, United States. The Respondent is IT Support, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <biolongevitysupps.com> is registered with Porkbun LLC (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 disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 (John Doe) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 17, 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 18, 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 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 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Phillip V. Marano as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 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 Copley, Ohio based manufacturer of analytically verified peptides and bioregulators, as well as nutraceuticals for use as dietary supplements. On June 13, 2024, the Complainant registered its domain name, and the Complainant has offered information about its products on its official <biolongevitylabs.com> website. The Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark in the United Kingdom (Reg. No. 4,304,135) filed on December 2, 2025, registered on February 27, 2026, and the European Union (Reg No. 019286841) filed on December 4, 2025, registered on April 26, 2026. The Complainant also owns a pending United States application for the same BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark No. 99/344809filed on August 19, 2025, as well as a pending application for its design trademark No. 99848742, which were filed on May 27, 2026. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 17, 2026. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolved to a website titled “BioLongevitySupps – Elevate Your Everyday Health”, which appears to offer supplements for sale that bear the Complainant’s design trademark and a “BIO LONGEVITY SUPPLEMENTS” trademark. 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 asserts ownership of the BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark and has adduced evidence of trademark registration in the United Kingdom and European Union, with the earliest priority date based on its pending United States applications. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark, according to the Complainant, because the Respondent merely replaced the term “LABS” with the term “SUPPS” and the core element “BIOLONGEVITY” remains in the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on: the lack of any evidence the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct web traffic away from the Complainant, to divert business, capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill, and interfere with the Complainant’s online presence. In addition, according to the Complainant, the “Respondent has no legitimate need for any domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark because Respondent can, and already does, operate under a domain name that does not incorporate or imitate the Complainant’s trademark.” The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for numerous reasons, including: the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct web traffic away from the Complainant, to divert business, capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill, and interfere with the Complainant’s online presence; the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business; the Respondent’s misappropriation of the Complainant’s trademark and copyrighted artwork on the Respondent’s websites. page 3 As evidence to support its contentions, the Complainant has proffered: (i) the registration data for its official domain name; (ii) screengrabs of its products and checkout cart from its official website; (iii) copies of its trademark registrations and pending applications; (iv) the registration data for the disputed domain name; and (v) the response from the Registrar declining to act on the Complainant’s takedown demand. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must establish in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Although the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the burden remains with the Complainant to establish by a balance of probabilities, or a preponderance of the evidence, all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3 (“A respondent’s default [...] would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are accurate [...] panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.”); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002- 1064 (“The Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”). As a general observation further to that point, the Complainant has provided broad allegations in reference to the second and third elements of the Policy without the level of supporting evidence that would generally be expected or supporting citations to the WIPO Overview or any relevant cases decided under the Policy. Most concerningly, the Complaint does not contain a screengrab of the Respondent’s website content. As another example, at no point has the Complainant provided a side-by-side comparison of its official copyrighted website content with the Respondent’s website content to support its claims of misappropriation. As a result, no specifically problematic conduct or website content has been made clear to the Panel, apart from the Complainant’s conclusions of “[re]direct[ion of] web traffic away from the Complainant,” “divert[ed] business,” “capitaliz[ation] on the Complainant’s goodwill,” and “interfere[nce] with the Complainant’s online presence.” And the Complainant never explains what it means by the assertion, “Respondent can, and already does, operate under a domain name that does not incorporate or imitate the Complainant’s trademark.” A panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record where it considers such information useful to assessing the case merits and researching a decision. However, there is a limit to how much factual research a Panel can conduct. Common examples include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources like the Internet Archive, reviewing dictionaries, encyclopedias, or accessing trademark registration or other governmental databases. WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 4.8. The Panel has limited its independent factual research accordingly. page 4 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 3.1, section 1.7. Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark has been registered in the United Kingdom and the European Union with priority dated back to August 19, 2025, nearly seven months before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights in the BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark have been established pursuant to the first element of the Policy. To the extent that the Complainant has submitted evidence of trademark applications pending in the United States, these applications alone do not generally establish trademark rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they have not yet been approved or matured into registrations. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.1.4. However, they are nevertheless relevant to the August 19, 2025, priority date of the Complainant’s foreign trademark registrations, and the Complainant’s design trademark application is relevant to its misappropriation claims as discussed below. The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark. In this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark because, disregarding the .com generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name [...] [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar [...]”). gTLDs, such as .com in the disputed domain name, are generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and are disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. The Panel concurs with the Complainant that the same core element “BIOLONGEVITY” is wholly contained in the disputed domain name, and that substitution of the term “labs” for the term “supps” does not prevent confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8 (Additional terms “whether descriptive, geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name). 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 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. page 5 Having reviewed the very limited record, and performed necessary independent investigation, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent 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. And where, as in this case, the Respondent fails to come forward with any relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. First, it is evident that the Respondent, identified by registration data for the disputed domain name simply as “IT Support”, for a putative entity with a “[...]@researchacademy.institute” email address, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark. Second, although not expressly asserted in the Complaint, it is implied that there is no relationship between the Complainant and Respondent, no permission or authorization for the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark, and no independent trademark rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent. Third, based on the Panel’s independent investigation of the Respondent’s website, it bears numerous hallmarks of a fake web shop. It specifically targets the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark, with only a slight variation in the “BIO LONGEVITY SUPPS” mark used by the Respondent. It reproduces an identical version of the Complainant’s applied-for design trademark on each of the putative products offered by the Respondent. It appears to offer deep discounts on putative products, whereas the official screenshots of the Complainant’s website reflect much higher prices in general. While the Complainant did not identify any specific copyrighted content, and the Panel did not identify any obvious misappropriation of copyrighted content, the Respondent’s website appears to mimic the same blue header with white font, versus white body and blue font, plus general website trade dress of the Complainant’s official website. And finally, it is well established that a respondent's use of a complainant's trademark to redirect users to a competing website would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 2.5.3; Richemont International SA v. Turvill Consultants, Case No. D2014-0862 (“Complainant has not consented to, licensed, or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register the disputed domain names and sell similar products [...]”); G4S Limited v. Serkouh Abderrahmane, Devarch Digital, Case No. D2024-5171(“The fact that Respondent offers services [on its website] in competition with Complainant’s services supports a finding that Respondent has targeted Complainant’s mark and has sought to enhance its own business by creating a false impression among consumers that Respondent’s website is somehow associated with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or ii. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark 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 disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or page 6 iv. by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online 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. Circumstances in this case corroborate the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant and the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark, including: (i) the nature of the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the identical core element “BIOLONGEVITY” of the Complainant’s trademark, and adds the term “supps”, which is an abbreviation for the descriptive term “supplements”; and (ii) the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with an ostensibly fake web shop that purports to sell supplements in direct competition with the Complainant, to which the Complainant’s identical applied-for design trademark appear affixed. Use of a domain name incorporating a complainant’s trademark to redirect Internet users to the respondent’s website, where putative goods or services are offered in direct competition with that complainant, is strong evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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: [...] seeking to cause confusion for respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful [...] the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name [or] redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website, even where such website contains a disclaimer] [...].“). Here, the disputed domain name misappropriates a slight variation of the Complainant’s BIOLONGEVITY LABS trademark and resolves to the Respondent’s ostensibly fake web shop that contains offers to sell “BIO LONGEVITY SUPPS” supplements that bear the Complainant’s identical applied-for design trademark at deeply discounted prices from the Complainant’s products. Accordingly, the Panel finds that use of the disputed domain name will divert potential customers from the Complainant's business to the website under the disputed domain name by attracting Internet users who mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant, and which may further mistakenly believe that the products offered on this website are authentic products offered by the Complainant, or by an entity affiliated to the Complainant. Lastly, the failure of the Respondent to answer this Complaint or take any part in the present proceedings, in the view of the Panel, is another indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002- 0787. Accordingly, 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 <biolongevitysupps.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Phillip V. Marano/ Phillip V. Marano Sole Panelist Date: September 29, 2026

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