Porn-hab.com + 8 more domains

The timeline behind porn-hab.com

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 Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. Dragomir Pecurica / Pecurica & Co / Ihar Poresh / QWERTY22 DOO Claim Number: FA2602002207146 PARTIES Complainant is Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. ("Complainant"), represented by Jules Gaudin of ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is Dragomir Pecurica / Pecurica & Co / Ihar Poresh / QWERTY22 DOO ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com>, <porn-xxx-hub.com>, <porn-hub.pro>, <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro>, <brazzershemale.pro> and <pornhop.pro>, registered with Namesilo, Llc and Danesco Trading Ltd. 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2026; Forum received payment on February 25, 2026. On February 25 and 26, 2026 and March 3, 2026, Namesilo, Llc and Danesco Trading Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com>, <porn-xxx-hub.com>, <porn-hub.pro>, <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro>, <brazzershemale.pro> and <pornhop.pro> domain names are registered with Namesilo, Llc and Danesco Trading Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namesilo, Llc and Danesco Trading Ltd. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Namesilo, Llc and Danesco Trading Ltd. registration agreements 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 March 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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@porn-hab.com, postmaster@xxx-porn-hub.com, postmaster@porn-xxx-hub.com, postmaster@porn-hub.pro, postmaster@gaybrazzer.pro, postmaster@pornhubgay.pro, postmaster@pornhubshemale.pro, postmaster@brazzershemale.pro, postmaster@pornhop.pro. Also on March 10, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 11, 2026. On March 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The Panel notes that named registrant of <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com> and <porn-xxx-hub.com> is Dragomir Pecurica / Pecurica & Co and the named registrant of <porn-hub.pro>, <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro>, <brazzershemale.pro> and <pornhop.pro> is Ihar Poresh / QWERTY22 DOO. Complainant contends that the registrants for the disputed domain names are related because: 1) the disputed domain names all share the same contact e-mail address in the whois details provided by the respective registrars 2) Upon the Complainant submitting an abuse report to the hosting provider the hosting provider confirmed that all disputed domain names are operated by an individual using a specific e-mail address (different to the public-facing address on the whois details) 3) Each of the disputed domain names consist of similar variants of the Complainant's marks along with generic terms that redirects to a similar website operating on the same business model. The Respondent has filed a single response for all 9 disputed domain names, in which it consents to the transfer of 4 of them (discussed further below) and makes submissions in respect of the other 5. The Response is concluded "Respondent Dragomir Pecurica / Pecurica & Co / Ihar Poresh / QWERTY22 DOO". Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the absence of an explicit denial that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity, the Response suggests that the Complainant has not demonstrated sufficient evidence of common control and should be put to proof. The Panel is satisfied on the evidence before it, including the shared contact information and single response filed on behalf of an apparently single entity in respect of all 9 disputed domain names, that all the disputed domain names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that two unconnected entities would register 9 domain names targeted at the same Complainant using identical e-mail contact addresses while filing a joint Response. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents explicitly deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision. CONSENT TO TRANSFER (PARTIAL) In the Response, the Respondent indicates that it consents to the transfer of the <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro> and <brazzershemale.pro> domain names to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding the relevant Registrar of those domain names, Danesco Trading Ltd. placed a hold on the registrant's account and therefore the registrant cannot transfer the <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro> and <brazzershemale.pro> domain names while this proceeding is still pending. In a circumstance such as this, where the Respondent has not contested the transfer of the particular domain names, but instead agrees to transfer the domain names to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro> and <brazzershemale.pro> domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy."); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). The proceedings will continue in respect of the <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com>, <porn-xxx-hub.com>, <porn-hub.pro> and <pornhop.pro> domain names ("Domain Names") and the Panel's summary of the Complaint and the Response will reflect the more limited scope of the proceedings. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. is in the online adult entertainment business including operating a website at www.pornhub.com ("Complainant's Website"). Complainant asserts rights in the PORNHUB mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. no. 4,220,491, registered October 9, 2012). Respondent's <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com>, <porn-xxx-hub.com>, <porn-hub.pro> and <pornhop.pro> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's PORNHUB mark because they are add hyphens and the "xxx" abbreviation to the wholly incorporated PORNHUB mark or minor misspellings of the mark (replacing the "u" with a "a" or and "o") while adding the generic top-level domains ("gTLD") ".com" or ".pro". Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's PORNHUB mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses them to misleadingly divert consumers away from Complainant's Website to Respondent's own websites, which directly compete with Complainant's business and pass off as being connected to Complainant through the reproduction of Complainant's name and marks. Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business as a competitor. Respondent uses the Domain Names to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting internet uses away from Complainant's Website to Respondent's competing websites. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the PORNHUB mark prior to registering the Domain Names evidenced by the fame of Complainant's mark and the use of the Domain Names. B. Respondent Respondent denies that the Domain Names are confusingly similar noting the different spellings of some of the Domain Names as well as the fact that the terms "Porn", "Hub" and "XXX" are commonly used across adult websites and are hence descriptive. Respondent states that it has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names and does not use the Domain Names in bad faith as it operates its own legitimate adult video aggregation websites from each of these websites and provides proper notice and takedown procedures. Complainant has not shown that the Domain Names were registered to primarily target Complainant rather than to use descriptive or independently branded adult-industry terminology. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the PORNHUB mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the PORNHUB mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the PORNHUB mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 4,220,491, registered October 9, 2012). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the PORNHUB mark as each of the Domain Names either wholly incorporates the PORNHUB mark or contains an obvious misspelling of the PORNHUB mark, replacing the "u" with an "o" or "a". In addition, the Domain Names add hyphens, the generic term "xxx" and a gTLD. Addition of a generic term and a TLD to a trade mark or a misspelling of a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) ("Respondent's <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter 'y' and spacing within the mark, and appends the '.com' gTLD."); see also 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 Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the PORNHUB Mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Dragomir Pecurica / Pecurica & Co / Ihar Poresh / QWERTY22 DOO" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Names redirect visitors to websites where Respondent, often using the Complainant's PORNHUB mark, offers adult videos in direct competition with Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to a website offering services in competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel rejects the contention that the Respondent's use of the Domain Names is descriptive; while the individual elements of the Domain Names may be descriptive, in combination there is no descriptive meaning of any of the Domain Names; they are only explicable as referring to or as misspellings of the Complainant's well-known PORNHUB mark. 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)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Names, (between 2020 and 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's PORNHUB mark, which had been in use for at least 13 years at the time. The Respondent is offering services from the Domain Names that are in direct competition to the Complainant's services, from websites including websites with the title "PornHub", a direct reference to Complainant. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) to create confusion with Complainant's PORNHUB Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites offering adult entertainment videos in direct competition with Complainant, and often offered under Complainant's PORNHUB mark. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION In respect of the <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro> and <brazzershemale.pro> domain names, as the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the registrant both sought to transfer these domain names from the registrant to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gaybrazzer.pro>, <pornhubgay.pro>, <pornhubshemale.pro> and <brazzershemale.pro> domain names be TRANSFERRED from registrant to Complainant. Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <porn-hab.com>, <xxx-porn-hub.com>, <porn-xxx-hub.com>, <porn-hub.pro> and <pornhop.pro> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: March 12, 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.