Stevenuniverse.best

The timeline behind stevenuniverse.best

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 The Cartoon Network, Inc. v. Jeesmi Claim Number: FA2602002205880 PARTIES Complainant is The Cartoon Network, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Annie S. Wang-Poloskov of Wang Law Corporation, California, USA. Respondent is Jeesmi ("Respondent"), Tunisia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <stevenuniverse.best>, registered with Dynadot 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 18, 2026; Forum received payment on February 18, 2026. On February 20, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <stevenuniverse.best> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@stevenuniverse.best. Also on February 23, 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 17, 2026, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., and that it is a worldwide producer of entertainment goods and services, including animated motion pictures and television programs. Complainant's portfolio includes the widely popular animated series Steven Universe, which premiered on Cartoon Network in November 2013 and ran until January 2019, followed by the television film Steven Universe: The Movie and a 20-episode limited series, Steven Universe Future. The Steven Universe series has garnered numerous awards and nominations, including a 2019 Peabody Award for Children's & Youth Programming and a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Kids & Family Program. Complainant's portfolio also includes other well-known animated television series such as Rick and Morty, Adventure Time, and The Amazing World of Gumball. Complainant states that it, or its affiliated companies, has been for many years the owner of well-known registrations for the STEVEN UNIVERSE trademark in the United States, Tunisia and countries all over the world. Complainant, or its predecessors in interest, have continuously used and applied the trademark in connection with a variety of goods and services. Complainant asserts rights in the STEVEN UNIVERSE mark through its registration in the United States in 2016, and in Tunisia in 2013. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its STEVEN UNIVERSE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".best" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites URDP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to advertise episodes of Complainant's animated shows. Upon entering the website, a pop-up appears offering the Internet user a premium service "For Only 4.99$ per month" to "Unlock ad-free streaming and premium servers." After clicking "No, Thanks!", users are able to access pirated content, but only after being subjected to pop-up windows that redirect to malicious "malvertising" websites triggering browser security warnings and attempts to download malware. Complainant cites URDP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website redirect to malicious "malvertising" websites that attempt to download malware. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Complainant cites URDP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark STEVEN UNIVERSE dating back to 2013 and uses it to provide animated shows. The disputed domain name was registered in 2019. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website advertises episodes of Complainant's animated shows and is used to attempt to download malware. 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 STEVEN UNIVERSE mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".best" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Jeesmi". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page that offers links to download malware. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to install malware on users' devices is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name 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 under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Google Inc. v. Sergey Gridasov, FA 474816 (Forum July 5, 2005) (finding that use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to attract Internet users to a website that attempts to download malicious computer software is harmful to Complainant and not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)); see also Dell Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1246916 (Forum Apr. 10, 2009) (finding that the respondent was using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that attempted to download malware onto Internet users' computers, which was 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)). 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 under 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 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 noted above, Respondent is attempting to install malware. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Roben Houspian Singerdi, FA 1668125 (Forum Apr. 26, 2016) (finding bad faith where [r]espondent's confusingly similar domain name directs internet visitors to a website which attempts to infect such visitors with a ransomware variant of malware); see also eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users' devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Google Inc. v. Gridasov, FA 474816 (Forum July 5, 2005) (finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to "divert Internet users to a website that uses tactics that may be harmful to users' computers" is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also Dell Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1246916 (Forum Apr. 10, 2009) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to introduce malware onto Internet users' computers is presumably an attempt by the respondent to profit from the confusingly similar disputed domain name through the receipt of fees for engaging in this behavior or the use of information gained from the malware software to obtain some form of revenue and is thus evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website purports to offer Complainant's animated shows. 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). Finally, the WHOIS information is: Name: Jeesmi Phone Number: 216 . 96884953 Fax Number (optional): Address Line 1: Tunisia Address Line 2: City/Town: Tunisia State/Province/Region: Zip/Postal Code: 8100 Country: TN According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names: Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases. From publicly available databases, the Panel has found that "Tunisia" is not a city in "Tunisia", and that "Tunisia, Tunisia, TN" is not a valid address (nor is "Tunis, Tunisia"). Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. 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 <stevenuniverse.best> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 17, 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.