Carmapswaymo.vip + 5 more domains

The timeline behind carmapswaymo.vip

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Waymo LLC v. jiang shuying Claim Number: FA2602002206349 PARTIES Complainant is Waymo LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is jiang shuying ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <carmapswaymo.vip>, <carmapswaymo.com>, <carmapswaymo.cyou>, <carmapswaymo.mom>, <carmapswaymo.one> and <carmapswaymo.app>, 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 20, 2026; Forum received payment on February 20, 2026. On February 26, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carmapswaymo.vip>, <carmapswaymo.com>, <carmapswaymo.cyou>, <carmapswaymo.mom>, <carmapswaymo.one> and <carmapswaymo.app> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 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@carmapswaymo.vip, postmaster@carmapswaymo.com, postmaster@carmapswaymo.cyou, postmaster@carmapswaymo.mom, postmaster@carmapswaymo.one, and postmaster@carmapswaymo.app. Also on February 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 March 19, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it has used the WAYMO mark since 2016 in connection with autonomous vehicle technology and related vehicle, transportation and logistics offerings. Complainant asserts rights in the WAYMO mark through its registration in the United States in 2019. The mark is registered elsewhere and it is well known. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its WAYMO mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding generic/descriptive terms, and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the <carmapswaymo.vip> and <carmapswaymo.com> domain names direct to a website advertising or promoting competing autonomous vehicle transportation services to consumers; the websites contain embedded links which direct to various pages: one embedded link directs to a copy or impersonation of Complainant's website, another link directs to a copy of the website of the advertised competing autonomous vehicle transportation service, and a third link directs to a login screen which requests that consumers input personal information such as telephone number into the website to register or sign in to purported investment services. The <carmapswaymo.cyou>, <carmapswaymo.mom>, and <carmapswaymo.one> domain names direct to parked pages with sponsored pay-per-click advertising links related and unrelated to Complainant's business. And the <carmapswaymo.app> domain name fails to resolve to any active website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites impersonate Complainant, and/or purport to offer competing services, and/or display pay-per-click advertising links, some to competing products and services; one of the disputed domain names is not being used. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark WAYMO and uses it in connection with autonomous vehicle technology and related vehicle, transportation and logistics offerings. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2019. The disputed domain names were registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving websites impersonate Complainant, and/or purport to offer competing services, and/or display pay-per-click advertising links, some to competing products and services; one of the disputed domain names is not being used. Some of the resolving websites display Complainant's mark. 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 names each incorporate Complainant's WAYMO mark in its entirety, merely adding generic/descriptive terms and a generic top-level domain ("gTLDs"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. 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 names are confusingly similar 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 names: 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 names lists the registrant as "jiang shuying". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Edible Communities v. Thoreau, FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg, FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute 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)."); see also LF, LLC v. Kas Is / cas issen, FA 1958712 (Forum Sept. 9, 2021) ("Complainant has made out a prima facie case" where "Respondent's websites pretend to be a blog offering information on how to access Complainant's employee portal website, but the real purpose of the websites is to divert traffic from Complainant's legitimate <myloweslife.com> site through passing off."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make 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). Further, some of the resolving websites offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that using another's mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant's business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). In addition, the evidence provided by Complainant shows that Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to display parked webpages containing links to third-party sites, some of which offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). One of the disputed domain names is not being used. This can evince a finding that a respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of that disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in that disputed domain name. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 names. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, also as already noted, some of the resolving websites offer competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In addition, also as already noted, Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to disrupt Complainant's business and attract users for commercial gain through the use of third-party links. Panels have found such a use of a domain name to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and/or (iii). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Bad faith has been found even where a respondent has commercially benefited through links unrelated to a complainant's mark. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent's previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant's business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant's business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). As already noted, one of the disputed domain names is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panelists have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent's registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa." In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain names that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith."). There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though that disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). In addition, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names: registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant's mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA 1789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant's famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA 1615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant's mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: some of the resolving websites displays Complainant's mark. 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 Complainant's marks prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <carmapswaymo.vip>, <carmapswaymo.com>, <carmapswaymo.cyou>, <carmapswaymo.mom>, <carmapswaymo.one> and <carmapswaymo.app> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 19, 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.