Magenta-line.com

The timeline behind magenta-line.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 Dexatel OU v. Babertsyan Sipan Claim Number: FA2601002201586 PARTIES Complainant is Dexatel OU ("Complainant"), represented by Lilit Yeghiazaryan, Estonia. Respondent is Babertsyan Sipan ("Respondent"), Armenia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <magenta-line.com>, registered with Bluehost Inc. 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 24, 2026; Forum received payment on January 24, 2026. On January 26, 2026, Bluehost Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <magenta-line.com> domain name is registered with Bluehost Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bluehost Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bluehost 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@magenta-line.com. Also on January 26, 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 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 is an Estonian Private Limited Company (Osaühing) registered on April 6, 2015. Complainant states that it does not rely on any registered or unregistered trademark or service mark but bases the Complaint on Respondent's abuse of administrative access, lack of rights or legitimate interests, and bad-faith retention and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not file a Response. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Rule 3(b)(xi) requires Complainant to identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the disputed domain name, including previous UDRP cases involving the domain name at issue. The Complaint states that: "A prior UDRP complaint concerning the disputed domain name was filed by Magenta Line, LLC and denied solely on standing grounds under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) (Case No. FA2506002160574). This Complaint is filed by Dexatel OU, a different complainant with independent rights, and is based on materially different legal grounds, namely abuse of administrative access, lack of rights or legitimate interests, and bad-faith retention and use of the disputed domain name. Following the prior UDRP decision, registrar access to the disputed domain name was restored to the Respondent, after which the Respondent engaged in new conduct in January 2026 by modifying DNS settings and disrupting the operation of the disputed domain name, which forms part of the factual basis of this Complaint." Paragraph 4.18 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") asks: Under what circumstances would a refiled case be accepted? In answer, it defines a refiled case as one which concerns identical domain name(s) and parties to a previously-decided UDRP case in which the prior panel denied the complaint on the merits. A different Complainant in these proceedings takes them outside the perimeter of a refiled case. The Panel will apply the Policy taking account of the decision in Magenta Line, LLC v. Sipan Babertsyan / DEXATEL OU, FA2506002160574 (Forum July 24, 2025) ("the Magenta Line LLC case") where relevant. The Complaint elsewhere references Dexatel CJSC v. Sipan Babertsyan, FA149845 (Forum May 28, 2025), another UDRP case brought against the same Respondent by a company described as related to Complainant, where the Panel ordered transfer of <dexatel.com> from Respondent to the complainant in that case. The Panel finds that case sheds no better light on these proceedings. FINDINGS For reason given hereunder Complainant has failed to prove the first element of the Policy. 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; (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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. Forum's model complaint used by Complainant underscores that "[a]ll three elements of the Policy must be alleged and proved by the Complainant". By its own admission, Complainant states that it does not rely on any registered or unregistered trademark or service mark. The Panel would be entitled to deny the Complaint at this point but has examined the evidence to ascertain whether trademark rights may exist. There is no evidence accompanying the Complaint of registered trademark rights. There is no evidence of common law rights. Further, even if evidence had been provided of a connection between Complainant and Magenta Line LLC, the panelist in the Magenta Line LLC case found that "[t]he threshold challenge for the [c]omplainant is that it lacks a registered trademark and does not offer persuasive evidence that its claimed unregistered MAGENTA LINE mark has 'become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services.'" Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to prove trademark rights and so has not established the first element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Given the Panel's conclusion on the first element of the Policy, it is not necessary to enter findings on the second element. Registration and Used in Bad Faith Given the Panel's conclusion on the first element of the Policy, it is not necessary to enter findings on the third element. DECISION Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be denied. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <magenta-line.com> domain name remain with Respondent. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: February 21, 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.