Veracityhealth.website

The timeline behind veracityhealth.website

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 Veracity Wellness Inc. v. JAVIEON BYRD Claim Number: FA2602002203996 PARTIES Complainant is Veracity Wellness Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sophie Edbrooke of Gerben Perrott, PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is JAVIEON BYRD ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <veracityhealth.website>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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 February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026. On February 6, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <veracityhealth.website> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@veracityhealth.website. Also on February 9, 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 March 3, 2026, 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, Veracity Wellness Inc. is a Delaware corporation and the owner of the VERACITY marks. The VERACITY marks are unique and distinctive to Complainant, and Complainant has been building goodwill in its reputation for over 5 years. Complainant is also the owner and operator of the website <veracityhealth.co> which features supplements, health products, diagnostic kits, and hormone tests and the retail services of Complainant. The <veracityhealth.co> domain name has been registered since 2024 as reflected in the WhoIs information and has been in continuous use since this time. THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE VERACITY MARKS. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the VERACITY marks because the domain name wholly incorporates Complainant's VERACITY marks. Complainant's potential customers have been visiting the at-issue domain name and believing that they are accessing Complainant's genuine website, which has led and will continue to lead to confusion and cause irreparable harm to the VERACITY marks. Consumers will continue to incorrectly believe that the at-issue domain name and the website operated under or otherwise related to the domain name are associated or affiliated with or sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent has added the generic "website" to Complainant's VERACITY marks. "Website" as an alternate gLTD is generic as it merely indicates the place that consumers are visiting. Therefore, consumers have no reason to believe they are not purchasing from Complainant's website as there is no difference in commercial impression between the at-issue domain name and the Veracity marks. Respondent's only alteration from the Complainant's website domain is altering the TLD from ".co" to ".website." Previous UDRP Panels have recognized that adding a top-level domain name is insufficient to distinguish between a registered trademark and an infringing domain. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the infringing domain name, as it does not offer authentic VERACITY offerings and is not authorized to use the VERACITY marks. First, Respondent's use of the domain name has "no connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services." The Respondent's use of the mark on its site to pass itself off as Complainant and purporting to offer Complainant's services and sell goods under Complainant's name is not sufficient to establish a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Second, Respondent has not been "commonly known" by the domain name. A respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if (1) the WHOIS information did not provide any evidence of such a fact, (2) the complainant did not license the respondent to use complainant's mark, and (3) the respondent failed to present any affirmative evidence. Third, Respondent is not making a "legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." Appropriating a complainant's mark to profit from it "is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not a legitimate use." Respondent's website exists to confuse consumers and benefit from the significant goodwill that Complainant has already achieved. Respondent deceitfully attracts internet traffic away from the Complainant's website to a webpage falsely advertising the Complainant's offerings and falsely advertising the sale of supplements under the VERACITY marks. Respondent deceitfully attracts internet traffic to its website and/or otherwise divert internet users to its website that is pretending to goods included in Complainant's offerings, and multiple past consumers as well as future customers believe they are purchasing from Complainant's genuine website while sending the wrong products or no products at all, while collecting customer's personal information. Respondent's website is currently offline, but Respondent's website was using the VERACITY marks and images of the Complainant's offerings to imitate Complainant and Complainant's website. It was prominently displaying the VERACITY marks and clearly was intentionally deceiving consumers, despite having no connection with Respondent. When Respondent's website was live, consumers were actively purchasing from Respondent's website and either receiving incorrect products or no products at all. Consequently, internet users searching for the Complainant's offerings on the internet will incorrectly believe that the at-issue domain name is associated or affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent is thus attempting to unjustly profit from the substantial goodwill associated with the VERACITY marks. Such actions are clear evidence of no rights or legitimate interest and of bad faith registration and use. RESPONDENT REGISTERED AND IS USING THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME IN BAD FAITH. Respondent has clearly intended to capitalize upon the goodwill associated with Complainant's VERACITY marks, and this conduct falls squarely within the conduct described in ICANN Policy ¶ 4 (b) (iii) and (iv). Respondent's at-issue domain name serves as nothing more than a means for infringement or outright fraud because the at-issue domain name exists solely to attract internet traffic by imitating Complainant's website and possibly to steal visitors' money while tarnishing Complainant's reputation. When a Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name, to divert traffic and confuse consumers into believing that Respondent is Complainant, the Panel finds bath faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), because it registered the at-issue domain name containing the VERACITY marks and advertising the Complainant's offerings to deceive consumers into believing it is the Complainant's website, taking customers' money and personal information. These customers will believe they are dealing with the true and correct VERACITY brand and be deceived. Considering the foregoing, Complainant submits that Respondent has both registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith and that the domain name should be transferred to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the VERACITY trademark. 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 VERACITY trademark. Respondent used the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and purport to offer Complainant's services and sell goods under Complainant's name. 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 trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO trademark registration for the VERACITY mark is conclusive evidence of Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO."). Respondent's <veracityhealth.website> domain name contains Complainant's entire VERACITY trademark, followed by the highly suggestive term "health," and with all followed by the confusingly similar analysis irrelevant ".website" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Notably, the at-issue domain name is identical to Complainant's genuine domain name but for different top-levels. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <veracityhealth.website> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VERACITY trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). 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 trademark 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information for <veracityhealth.website> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "JAVIEON BYRD" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by <veracityhealth.website> or any variation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known as <veracityhealth.website> for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii)."). Respondent used its <veracityhealth.website> domain name to address a website referencing Complainant's VERACITY trademark and offering merchandise for sale like that offered by Complainant thus making the <veracityhealth.website> website look as if it is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <veracityhealth.website> in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4 (c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <veracityhealth.website>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's confusingly similar <veracityhealth.website> domain name addressed a website where Respondent purported to offer merchandise offered by Complainant under its VERACITY trademark. Respondent's website appears as if it might be Complainant's genuine website or at least be authorized by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar <veracityhealth.website> domain name in support of a website referencing Complainant's trademark and trading in the same sphere of commerce as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to deceptively attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <veracityhealth.website> domain name and referenced website, and Complainant's VERACITY trademark. Respondent's use of the <veracityhealth.website> domain name and website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <veracityhealth.website> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Moreover, Respondent registered <veracityhealth.website> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in VERACITY. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark, and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website referencing Complainant trademark and offering the same products as does Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's VERACITY trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <veracityhealth.website> domain name in bad faith. 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); 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). 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 <veracityhealth.website> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 3, 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.