Yahoosportsw.com

The timeline behind yahoosportsw.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.

DECISION Yahoo Inc. v. sha hao Claim Number: FA2509002176293 PARTIES Complainant is Yahoo Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joseph C. Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is sha hao ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yahoosportsw.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 10, 2025; Forum received payment on September 10, 2025. On September 12, 2025, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <yahoosportsw.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 September 15, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@yahoosportsw.com. Also on September 15, 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 October 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant's basis for its Complaint is its use, registration, and ownership of service marks and trademarks for YAHOO!, including the trademark YAHOO! SPORTS, trade name YAHOO, and the domain names YAHOO.COM and YAHOOSPORTS.COM. In continuous use since 1994, Complainant's mark has become one of the most recognized brands in the world. Complainant's famous name and mark is protected in the United States, China, and countries around the world. Specifically, Complainant owns numerous trademark applications and registrations for the YAHOO! marks in select countries around the world. Respondent registered the at-issue <yahoosportsw.com> domain name over 30 years after Complainant began using the YAHOO! marks, and long after the YAHOO! marks had become famous. The at-issue domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's well-known YAHOO! mark and Complainant's YAHOO! SPORTS mark with the addition of the letter "w" at the end, which is clearly an attempt at "typosquatting." The domain name resolves to a website titled "YAHOO SPORTS" with the infringing YAHOO SPORTS mark displayed prominently on the header of the page. The Respondent uses the <yahoosportsw.com> website to operate a virtual betting platform featuring a casino simulator, sports betting, and other casino games. The website's offering of these various games and betting services overlaps and competes with Complainant's various sports betting services offered under Complainant's YAHOO! mark. Some of the links on the Respondent's <yahoosportsw.com> website, including the link to "کیسینو کھیلیں" (translated to "Play the Casino") on the homepage, redirect to another gaming website at <luckypk777c.com>. This site appears to be related to or impersonating a website located at <luckypk777.com>, as it simply adds the letter "c" to the end of the domain name, much like how Respondent added the letter "w" to the end of Complainant's YAHOO! SPORTS mark to form the at-issue domain name. The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent has incorporated the YAHOO! and YAHOO! SPORTS marks into the at-issue domain name in their entirety. Respondent's use of ".com" does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of a generic top-level such as ".com" is disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. The inclusion of the letter "w" in <yahoosportsw.com> does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. Rather, Respondent's inclusion of a random letter at the end of Complainant's YAHOO! SPORTS mark is evidence of typosquatting. The omission of the exclamation point of Complainant's YAHOO! mark from Respondent's domain name is also irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. Exclamation points are not permitted in domain names and even if permitted the domain name would nevertheless be confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. First, there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent that would give Respondent the right to own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's YAHOO! marks. Second, nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Third, Respondent is neither using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), 4(c)(iii). Rather, Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant in an effort to divert Complainant's user base to the <yahoosportsw.com> website featuring YAHOO! marks and branding to operate an online casino that offers overlapping sports betting services in direct competition with Complainant. In view of the widespread consumer recognition of the Complainant's YAHOO! marks, and because Respondent has no rights in Complainant's marks, Respondent did not register <yahoosportsw.com> for any legitimate or fair purpose. Rather, Respondent clearly registered the at-issue domain name with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of diverting internet traffic intended for the Complainant. This use is neither legitimate nor fair. The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with Complainant's mark in mind and with intent to cause confusion. Respondent registered <yahoosportsw.com>, well after Complainant's YAHOO! mark became famous and such is sufficient to satisfy the bad faith requirement. Respondent's use of the YAHOO! mark in the at-issue domain name in connection with competing goods and services to those offered by Complainant shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in and to its YAHOO! mark before registering the at-issue domain name, and therefore undeniably registered such domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith by diverting internet traffic to an online casino to generate revenue for Respondent's financial gain. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by registering a domain name that simply adds one letter to Complainant's YAHOO! SPORTS mark. Panels have consistently found that registering a misspelling of a Complainant's mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Lastly, it appears that Respondent has previously registered domain names that infringe on third-party rights, which evidences Respondent's bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the YAHOO! and the YAHOOSPORTS.COM as other trademarks rooted in the YAHOO! mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the <yahoosportsw.com> trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name address a website posing as if affiliated with Complainant that operates an online casino offering sports betting services in direct competition with Complainant. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant demonstrates rights in the YAHOO! and YAHOO SPORTS marks through its registration of such marks with the USPTO as well as with multiple other trademark agencies worldwide. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO."). Respondent's <yahoosportsw.com> domain name contains Complainant's YAHOO! trademark less its exclamation point and with the term "sport" and letter "w" added, all followed by the ".com" top-level. The domain name can also be characterized as containing a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's YAHOO SPORTS trademark where a letter "w" has been appended to the mark with all followed by the ".com" top-level to complete the domain name. The differences between <yahoosportsw.com> and Complainant's YAHOO! trademark, as well as between the domain name and Complainant's YAHOO SPORTS trademark, are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from either mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <yahoosportsw.com> domain name is confusingly similar to both YAHOO! and YAHOO SPORTS. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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, Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.") Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "sha hao" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <yahoosportsw.com> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses its <yahoosportsw.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. The at-issue domain name addresses a website prominently titled YAHOO SPORTS. The domain name and website might well be perceived as being an official or sponsored domain name and/or website of Complainant while the website offers sports betting and gaming services competing with Complainant's offering. Respondent's use of its <yahoosportsw.com> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also, Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (holding that the respondent's use of disputed domain names to market competing limousine services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as the respondent was appropriating the complainant's CAREY mark in order to profit from the mark). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <yahoosportsw.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. First, Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <yahoosportsw.com> website. Together, the <yahoosportsw.com> domain name and its website deceive internet users into falsely believing that they are affiliated with Complainant as the website is prominently titled YAHOO SPORTS and offers gambling related services like those offered by Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users to Respondent's website by capitalizing on the confusion that Respondent created between its <yahoosportsw.com> domain name and Complainant's YAHOO! and YAHOO SPORTS trademarks. Respondent's use of the <yahoosportsw.com> domain name and its associated website in this manner demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <yahoosportsw.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products). Next, Respondent has suffered at least one prior adverse UDRP decision. Respondent's cybersquatting history indicates a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Candie Deloach / Excella, FA2402002085056 (Forum Mar. 20, 2024) (finding that Respondent's repeated improper and illegitimate registration and use of domain names is evidence of bad faith). Respondent also engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or upon reading the domain name will overlook the misspelling and subsequently believe the domain name is related to, or sponsored by, the domain name's target trademark. In our case, Respondent added a letter "w" to Complainant's YAHOO SPORTS trademark in forming the <yahoosportsw.com> domain name. Typosquatting, in itself, demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) ("As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter 'L' for the letter 'K'in the LOCK-portion of Complainant's registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") Moreover, Respondent registered <yahoosportsw.com> with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in YAHOO! and YAHOO SPORTS. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademarks, from the overt misspelling of Complainant's YAHOO SPORTS mark in the at-issue domain name, and from Respondent's use of <yahoosportsw.com> to address a website posing has having an affiliation with Complainant where Respondent operates a business that directly competes with Complainant. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's YAHOO! and YAHOO SPORTS trademarks further indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <yahoosportsw.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: October 7, 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.