Amyschumertour2026.com

The timeline behind amyschumertour2026.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Amy Schumer and Muffin Schumer, Inc. v. Stanislav Gershenovich Claim Number: FA2502002139462 PARTIES Complainant is Amy Schumer and Muffin Schumer, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Stanislav Gershenovich ("Respondent"), Washington, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <amyschumertour2026.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2025; Forum received payment on February 10, 2025. On February 11, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amyschumertour2026.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amyschumertour2026.com. Also on February 13, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 6, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." There are two Complainants in this matter: Amy Schumer and Muffin Schumer, Inc.. Complainants argue that Muffin Schumer, Inc. is the closely held loan-out corporation Complainant Amy Schumer uses in connection with certain of her commercial activities; Amy Schumer is Muffin Schumer, Inc.'s President. Muffin Schumer, Inc. exercises its rights to the AMY SCHUMER mark under the direction and control of Ms. Schumer. Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that she is a world-renowned comedian, actress, screen writer, and author who extensively uses her name as a trademark and service mark to identify her goods and services. Complainant has been performing professionally since at least as early as 2004, including at comedy clubs such as the Gotham Comedy Club in New York City and at other venues. She is a standup comedian (her comedy special Amy Schumer: Live at the Apollo was featured on HBO and she was nominated for three Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Variety Special, Writing and Directing for her work), the creator, co-producer, co-writer and star of the sketch comedy series Inside Amy Schumer (for which she won a Peabody Award), the author of the comedy film Trainwreck (for which she won the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical), the executive producer and star of the American cooking show Amy Schumer Learns to Cook (which was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award), and the author of The Girl with the Lower Back Tattoo (a New York Times' Best Seller), to list only a few of her many accomplishments. More recently, Complainant created and starred in the comedy series Life & Beth on Hulu (2022-2024), and the Netflix comedy special, Emergency Contact (2023). In 2015 Complainant was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People and was also named to Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating People list. Complainant has been featured in countless magazines and has graced numerous magazine covers. Complainant's Facebook account is followed by 3.4 million people, and her Twitter account is followed by 4.1 million people. Complainant asserts rights in the mark AMY SCHUMER through its registration in the United States in 2018. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to her AMY SCHUMER mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "tour" and the digits "2026" (which refer to the year 2026), together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use her mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and portray a false association between Respondent and Complainant by hosting a website advertising a non-existent comedy tour performed by Complainant; the resolving website explicitly refers to Complainant and her activities. Respondent has also registered at least 320 other domain names with which Respondent is attempting to impersonate different famous persons and groups. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the resolving website. The resolving website impersonates Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. MX records are configured for the disputed domain name, so it could be used in furtherance of phishing. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark AMY SCHUMER and uses it to market her services as a comedian, actress, screen writer, and author. Complainant's rights in her mark date back to at least 2018. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use her mark. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant; the resolving website explicitly refers to Complainant and her activities. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's AMY SCHUMER mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "tour" and the digits "2026" (which stand for the year 2026), together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless digits or letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as "Stanislav Gershenovich". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau, FA0803001158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA0808001220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. In support, it provides evidence showing that Respondent has also registered at least 320 other domain names with which Respondent is attempting to impersonate different famous persons and groups. However, Complainant does not cite any previous UDRP cases in which Respondent has been found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it. Complainant alleges that the dispute domain name could be used in furtherance of phishing, because MX records are configured for it. However, Complainant does not present any evidence of actual use of the disputed domain name in emails. Consequently the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA0304000156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA0705000993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website explicitly refers to Complainant and her activities. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amyschumertour2026.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 6, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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