Mathangel369.com

The timeline behind mathangel369.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 Angela Morgan v. Robert Alden Leones Case No. D2026-3812 1. The Parties The Complainant is Angela Morgan, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. The Respondent is Robert Alden Leones, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mathangel369.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 25, 2026. On August 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 27, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 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 28, 2026. On August 29, 2026, the Respondent sent an informal communication. 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 September 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. On September 22, 2026, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to the panel appointment process. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 United States based university lecturer and content creator with a master’s degree in applied mathematics who operates a business involved in mathematics instruction, educational videos, and online courses delivered via modes that include social-media platforms and her professional website. The Complainant has not registered MATHANGEL369 as a trademark but the mark has consistently been used by the Complainant since at least 2020 as a distinctive identifier in connection to her services relating to educational videos, online courses, and social-media content in connection with the mathematics instruction market. The Complainant owned the Disputed Domain Name from 2020 until it lapsed in April 2026 and used it to host a website for her mathematics instruction business. The Disputed Domain Name was later registered by the Respondent and resolved to a webpage advertising an online casino. The Disputed Domain Name is currently 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. Notably, the Complainant says it has unregistered common law trademark rights for the trademark MATHANGEL369 and also cites its use over 6 years as prima facie evidence of ownership. In support of the contention that the name has acquired secondary meaning as a source identifier, the Complainant cites her university affiliations and matters such as her Instagram account, @mathangel369, that has approximately 42,300 followers, and a YouTube channel named MathAngel369 that uses the handle @MathAngel369 with approximately 6,090 subscribers. The Complainant submits that her rights in the mark MATHANGEL369 predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name and that her “verified Instagram account, established YouTube channel, paid Udemy courses, Facebook page, WordPress website, substantial audience, course enrollments, reviews, and consistent branding demonstrate that MathAngel369 has acquired public recognition as an identifier of the Complainant and her educational services.” The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to her trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of the MATHANGEL369 trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” is to be “disregarded when comparing the domain name and the mark under the first element of the UDRP”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the “Complainant has never authorized, licensed, assigned, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to register or use the MathAngel369 mark or the Disputed Domain Name. There is no relationship, affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement between the Complainant and the Respondent”, and that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply that would amount to a legitimate or fair use under the Policy. page 3 Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was, and currently is, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to evidence that points to awareness of the Complainant and her trademark. On the issue of registration in bad faith the Complainant submits that “a basic Internet search for MathAngel369 would have revealed the Complainant’s substantial and longstanding online presence” and contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered to divert her substantial student awareness. On the issue of bad faith use, the Complainant submits that the “Respondent is using the exact MathAngel369 domain to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant and her educational services to unrelated third-party commercial content. The current destination appears to promote online gaming services and displays registration, login, and promotional features. This use takes advantage of the recognition, traffic, and longstanding links developed by the Complainant” amounts to use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent only sent an informal communication requesting information about the proceedings. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence, including among others social media accounts with multiple followers and economic activities conducted using such denomination, to demonstrate that she has unregistered trademark rights in the mark MATHANGEL369. The Panel finds that the term “mathangel369” has acquired secondary meaning and become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant for her services having used it as an identifier since 2020 to an extent that it has achieved significance as a source identifier. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MATHANGEL369 trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of: (a) an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark MATHANGEL369; (b) followed by the gTLD “.com”. It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “mathangel369”. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. page 4 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 Disputed 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. The Panel notes that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use her trademark and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, let alone any accurate or prominent disclosure of that relationship, or absence of such, on her website. The Panel also notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name carries a high risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1). The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark to promote an online casino was primarily intended for commercial gain and to unfairly profit from the Complainant's reputation. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.3. 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 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. 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 finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s distinctive trademark, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant’s trademark MATHANGEL369 when it registered the Disputed Domain Name with an intention to benefit from the web traffic the Complainant’s mark has generated. Moreover, longstanding links from the Complainant’s social-media and educational content continued to direct Internet users to the Disputed Domain Name. This Panel finds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO page 5 Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. On the issue of use, the Complainant’s evidence is that the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a gambling website presumably to earn commercial gains. The Respondent has therefore used the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users looking for the Complainant’s website for its own commercial purposes. In the circumstances, having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels have found too, that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. 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 current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. 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 <mathangel369.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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