Skyepeptids.com

The timeline behind skyepeptids.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 Skye Research, LLC v. rachel corsie Claim Number: FA2604002217907 PARTIES Complainant is Skye Research, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Joel Rapaport, United States. Respondent is rachel corsie ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <skyepeptids.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 April 25, 2026; Forum received payment on April 25, 2026. On April 27, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <skyepeptids.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 April 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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@skyepeptids.com. Also on April 28, 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 May 19, 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 has been engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling peptide products for research and development purposes since at least 2022. Throughout this period Complainant has used SKYE PEPTIDES and an "S" logo in connection with its goods and services, and has operated a website at the domain name <skyepeptides.com>, where it markets and sells its products. Complainant states that it has invested tens of thousands of dollars in developing its branding materials. Complainant asserts that SKYE PEPTIDES has achieved widespread consumer recognition, as evidenced by its prominence in organic Google search results, listings in third-party review platforms and by a independent testing laboratory, mentions in Reddit consumer discussion threads, and contacts that Complainant receives from customers by email or telephone. Complainant has pending United States trademark applications for SKYE PEPTIDES and its "S" logo, and asserts common law rights in both marks based upon at least three years of use in commerce. Complainant states that the SKYE PEPTIDES brand has been the target of a coordinated campaign of phishing, impersonation, and counterfeiting by bad-faith actors who register similar domain names, copy Complainant's website, and operate fraudulent storefronts. In several instances Complainant has successfully obtained takedowns or deindexing of such websites. Complainant has also prevailed in five previous proceedings under the Policy involving its SKYE PEPTIDES mark and domain names similar to the one at issue here. See Skye Research, LLC v. Moka Emmanuel, FA 2212360 (Forum Apr. 21, 2026) (ordering transfer of <skipeptide.com>); Skye Research, LLC v. puath EXPORT, FA 2212003 (Forum Apr. 16, 2026) (ordering transfer of <skyepeptidesshop.com>); Skye Research, LLC v. Green Street, FA 2210451 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (ordering transfer of <skyeppeptide.com>); Skye Research, LLC v. trap baby slime / trippypharma, FA 2207610 (Forum Mar. 25, 2026) (ordering transfer of <skyespeptides.com>); Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly, FA 2173208 (Forum Sept. 29, 2025) (ordering transfer of <skiepeptides.com>). The disputed domain name <skyepeptids.com> was registered in February 2026. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Skye Peptides – Buy High-Quality Research Peptides Online | discountpeptide.us." The website displays Complainant's SKYE PEPTIDES mark and "S" logo; exact copies of Complainant's product labels; and text, page layouts, products descriptions, and design elements copied from Complainant's website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <skyepeptids.com> is confusingly similar to its SKYE PEPTIDES 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 To prevail under the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. A pending trademark application does not establish the rights required for paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Valeris, Inc. v. Mayra Guerra, FA 2205224 (Forum Mar. 20, 2026); WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.1.4. Where a claim relies upon common law rights, Complainant must present evidence that the mark has acquired secondary meaning — i.e., that it has become a distinctive identifier associated with Complainant or its goods or services. See WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.3; UDRP Perspectives, supra, §§ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Complainant relies on common law rights arising from its use and promotion of SKYE PEPTIDES in connection with the manufacture, marketing, and sale of peptide products for research and development purposes over a period of at least three years. Complainant's claim to such rights has been considered and accepted in five previous proceedings under the Policy, decided by five different panelists. See Skye Research, LLC v. Moka Emmanuel, FA 2212360, supra; Skye Research, LLC v. puath EXPORT, supra; Skye Research, LLC v. Green Street, supra; Skye Research, LLC v. trap baby slime / trippypharma, supra; Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly, supra. But see Skye Research, LLC v. moka Emmanuel, FA 2210150 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (rejecting claim of common law rights in SKYE). The evidence provided by Complainant, at least in the absence of any challenge by Respondent, is sufficient in the view of this Panel to demonstrate common law trademark rights in SKYE PEPTIDES for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The disputed domain name <skyepeptids.com> corresponds to the SKYE PEPTIDES mark, omitting the space and a letter "E" and adding the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Moka Emmanuel, FA 2212360, supra (finding <skipeptide.com> confusingly similar to SKYE PEPTIDES); Skye Research, LLC v. Green Street, supra (finding <skyeppeptide.com> confusingly similar to SKYE PEPTIDES); Skye Research, LLC v. trap baby slime / trippypharma, supra (finding <skyespeptides.com> confusingly similar to SKYE PEPTIDES); Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly, supra (finding <skiepeptides.com> confusingly similar to SKYE PEPTIDES); Micro Electronics, Inc. v. zhang wei, FA 2015197 (Forum Nov. 8, 2022) (finding <microcnter.com> confusingly similar to MICRO CENTER). 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 corresponds to a misspelling of Complainant's mark. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to impersonate Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Moka Emmanuel, FA 2212360, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Skye Research, LLC v. puath EXPORT, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. Green Street, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. trap baby slime / trippypharma, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly, 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 what appears to the Panel to be invalid and at least partially fictitious registration information to register a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's mark, in what the Panel considers to be an instance of typosquatting. The domain name is being used for a misleading website that attempts to impersonate Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Moka Emmanuel, FA 2212360, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Skye Research, LLC v. puath EXPORT, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. Green Street, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. trap baby slime / trippypharma, supra (same); Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly, 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 <skyepeptids.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: May 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.