Ultabet.net

The timeline behind ultabet.net

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 Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. PT. NIKKEL INDONESIA / Elisabeth Wang Claim Number: FA2602002205886 PARTIES Complainant is Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is PT. NIKKEL INDONESIA / Elisabeth Wang ("Respondent"), Cambodia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ultabet.net>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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 18, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ultabet.net> 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@ultabet.net. Also on February 18, 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 11, 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, since opening its first store more than 30 years ago, it has become the largest beauty retailer in the United States and the premier beauty destination for cosmetics, fragrance, skin, hair care products and salon services. Since at least as early as 1990, Complainant has been continuously and extensively engaged in the business of marketing and selling its goods and services under the mark ULTA, and other marks containing the term ULTA. Through its online and brick-and-mortar stores, Complainant offers more than 29,000 products from over 600 well-established and emerging beauty brands across all categories and price points, including Complainant's own private label. As of August 2, 2025, Complainant operates 1,473 retail stores across 50 states and the District of Columbia and distributes its products through its website <www.ulta.com>. Complainant asserts rights in the mark ULTA through its registration in the United States in 2001. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ULTA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "bet", together with the ".net" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website offers gambling services. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website offers gambling services. Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ULTA mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name may be used in furtherance of email phishing. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark ULTA, with rights dating back to 2001, and uses it to market cosmetics, fragrance, skin, hair care products and salon services. The disputed domain name was registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website offers gambling services. 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 ULTA mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "bet", together with the ".net" generic top-level domain ("gTLDs"). This is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists "PT. NIKKEL INDONESIA / Elisabeth Wang" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers gambling services. Previous Panels have found that this is not a bona fide or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (Respondent's domain name "resolves to a Chinese-language website advertising games or gambling.); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (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 Complainant 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 already noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers gambling services. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd. v. Elizabeth Dobson, FA 1989201 (Forum May. 2, 2022) ("the Panel determines that the disputed domain name's deceptive redirection of internet users to Respondent's website, which offers links to online gambling websites, is deliberately designed for Respondent's commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which is identical to the complainant's mark, to a gambling website); see also Qwest Comm'ns Int'l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Forum Oct. 6, 2003) ("Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant. Respondent's attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <ultabet.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 11, 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.