Wallet-keeta.com

The timeline behind wallet-keeta.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 Keeta, Inc. v. Sahad Mohammed Riviera / Sahari Muti Inc Claim Number: FA2601002200659 PARTIES Complainant is Keeta, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Maulin V Shah of Envision IP LLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Sahad Mohammed Riviera / Sahari Muti Inc ("Respondent"), Spain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wallet-keeta.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026. On January 21, 2026, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wallet-keeta.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026 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@wallet-keeta.com. Also on January 21, 2026, 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 February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 1- Complainant, Keeta, Inc., is a fintech company focused on payments through its high-speed, low-cost blockchain technology platform since 2023. 2- Complainant owns trademark registrations for KEETA and its design as from 2023. 3- Complainant maintains an extensive Internet presence, including its corporate website at <keeta.com> and an official wallet URL <wallet.keeta.com>. 4- Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 29, 2025. 5- The disputed domain name, <wallet-keeta.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. 6- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. 7- The domain name <wallet-keeta.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Keeta Inc., owns the trademark KEETA and has used it in connection with payment services through a high-speed, low-cost blockchain technology platform since 2023. Complainant also operates the domain name www.keeta.com to promote its services and the subdomain www.wallet.keeta.com, which is its official wallet. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <wallet-keeta.com> on July 2025 and it is being used in bad faith. 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 Complainant has rights in KEETA marks through trademark registrations and use for many years (Annexes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the KEETA mark with different Trademark Offices, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in the KEETA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the KEETA mark as it incorporates Complainant's trademark along with the generic term "wallet", which is related to Complainant services and which is also used by Complainant on its official wallet at the subdomain <wallet.keeta.com> (Annex 9). Respondent mimics Complainant's subdomain by changing the dot between the two words by a hyphen. Panels have found additional terms insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. 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."). Further, TLDs are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). Given that Respondent only adds a generic term (which is also used by Complainant on its official wallet), a hyphen and the gTLD to the KEETA mark, the Panel concludes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wallet-keeta.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the KEETA mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Annex 8). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <wallet-keeta.com> domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <wallet-keeta.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Annex 10). The disputed domain name currently tries to impersonate Complainant's official website. As shown in Annexes 9 and 10. Respondent's website is virtually identical to Complainant's legitimate wallet interface, including the colors, the trademark, the logo and the exact words. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The domain registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered and used as from 2023 (Annexes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 9). The domain name was registered on July 29, 2025. Taking it into account, as well as the use of the disputed domain name by Respondent, it is clear for this Panel that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind. Registration was done in bad faith. As regards to the use, since the disputed domain name <wallet-keeta.com> includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term, which is also used by Complainant at its official wallet (wallet.keeta.com) and the site shows Complainant's trademark, logo, colors and identical phrases (Annex 10), the Panel finds that the use of the domain name was done in bad faith. The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in 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 <wallet-keeta.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: February 23, 2026 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.