Ulta-shop.com

The timeline behind ulta-shop.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 Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Ali Khan / UltaShot Claim Number: FA2602002205887 PARTIES Complainant is Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, United States. Respondent is Ali Khan / UltaShot ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ulta-shop.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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. David E. Sorkin 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, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <ulta-shop.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ulta-shop.com. Also on February 18, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 David E. Sorkin 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 the largest beauty retailer in the United States, operating 1,473 retail stores and also offering products online. Complainant sells products from a variety of beauty brands, including its own private label. Complainant has used ULTA and related marks in connection with goods and services since at least as early as 1990. Complainant owns trademark registrations for ULTA in standard character form and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, and also asserts common law rights in the ULTA mark. Complainant contends that ULTA has no meaning other than as an identifier for Complainant and its goods and services. The disputed domain name <ulta-shop.com> was registered in January 2026. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "UltaShop" that appears to offer one product for sale, an "Ulta™ Sport Ankle Brace." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ulta-shop.com> is confusingly similar to its ULTA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <ulta-shop.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ULTA trademark, adding a hyphen, the generic term "shop," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. zhou zheng, FA 2183164 (Forum Nov. 11, 2025) (finding <ulta-clearance.com> confusingly similar to ULTA); Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Doughouz Group / Doughouz Group Ltd, FA 2147925 (Forum Apr. 25, 2025) (finding <ulta-host.com> confusingly similar to ULTA); Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Umaira Tariq, FA 2131038 (Forum Jan. 17, 2025) (finding <ulta-stores.com> confusingly similar to ULTA BEAUTY); Paige, LLC v. Yumei Wang, FA 2043264 (Forum June 2, 2023) (finding <paige-shop.com> confusingly similar to PAIGE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website that uses Complainant's ULTA mark to promote a product that is at least tangentially related to products offered by Complainant, in a manner that the Panel infers is intended to create a false impression that the website or product is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Medline Industries, L.P. v. Francesco Piergianni / Medline USA/US/UK, FA 2173773 (Forum Sept. 18, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Paige, LLC v. Yumei Wang, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using the domain name for a website that uses the mark to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its mark for Respondent's commercial gain. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Medline Industries, L.P. v. Francesco Piergianni / Medline USA/US/UK, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Paige, LLC v. Yumei Wang, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ulta-shop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, 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.