Digimesh.io

The timeline behind digimesh.io

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 Digi International, Inc. v. Anthony Asplin, Asplin Services Pty Ltd Case No. DIO2026-0034 1. The Parties The Complainant is Digi International, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Merchant & Gould, PC, United States. The Respondent is Anthony Asplin, Asplin Services Pty Ltd, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <digimesh.io> is registered with Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 9, 2026. On July 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 13, 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 (Withheld for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 14, 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 July 14, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 July 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on August 17 and 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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, which describes itself as an “industrial Internet of Things technology company”, has supplied wireless network adapters, modules and other products under the mark DIGIMESH since 2008. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for DIGIMESH including United States trade mark No. 3535161, registered on November 18, 2008. The disputed domain name was registered on August 17, 2022. As of July 8, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was branded “DigiMesh” and stated: “DigiMesh aims to revolutionize secure IoT communications by providing a distributed network of nodes capable of performing data storage and edge computing functions [...]” The site purported to offer free and paid subscription plans, and also included some Latin placeholder text. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On August 17, 2026, the Respondent emailed the Center acknowledging receipt of the physical Notification of Complaint on the same date, and requesting an extension of seven days to respond. On August 24, 2026, in response to an email from the Center requesting clarification of the correspondent’s status, the Respondent confirmed that it was the registrant of the disputed domain name, requested an explanation of the nature of the dispute and asserted that: - the disputed domain name had not yet been used for any sales purpose and was currently resolving to a dummy website, which the Respondent acknowledged it should have made clearer; - the disputed domain name was “reserved as a business” that was aligned with the Respondent’s registered business name in Australia; and - the “.com” version of the disputed domain name appeared to be for sale. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 page 3 the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions 1 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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. 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 is on the complainant, panels have recognised 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. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered or 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 or use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. First, the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s distinctive mark. 1 Although WIPO Overview 3.1 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity between the UDRP and the Policy, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the Policy diverges from the UDRP. page 4 Second, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that creates the impression that it is associated with the Complainant including (a) by prominent use of the Complainant’s DIGIMESH trade mark on the webpage, and (b) by purporting to offer goods and services that relate to the “Internet of Things” (referred to by the Respondent as “IoT”) and are apparently similar to the Complainant’s products. The Panel’s view is not altered by the Respondent’s following contentions in its informal emails to the Center: - That the disputed domain name has not yet been used for any sales purpose and was currently resolving to a dummy website, which the Respondent acknowledged it should have made clearer. The Respondent’s website presents as an active, trading website, including a subscription button, notwithstanding that some placeholder text becomes apparent when one scrolls down the page. As the Respondent acknowledges, there is no prominent warning that the website is a “dummy”. In any case, even if there had been, the other circumstances of the case nonetheless indicate that the Respondent set out to illicitly target the Complainant’s mark. - That the disputed domain name was “reserved as a business” that was allegedly aligned with the Respondent’s registered business name in Australia. The Respondent has provided no evidence of such business name registration, let alone that any such business name was adopted in good faith independently of the Complainant’s mark. Notably, the Respondent has not denied knowledge of the Complainant. Indeed, whether or not the website was truly intended as a “dummy”, its content, as discussed above, reinforces the likelihood that the Respondent was aware of, and set out to target, the Complainant. - That the “.com” version of the disputed domain name appeared to be for sale. Even if so, that would not justify the Respondent registering or using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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, <digimesh.io>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: September 15, 2026

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