Ultabeautyprod.com

The timeline behind ultabeautyprod.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. swapnil jadhav / vctechnmedia Claim Number: FA2606002226679 PARTIES Complainant is Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is swapnil jadhav / vctechnmedia ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ultabeautyprod.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 11, 2026; Forum received payment on June 11, 2026. On June 12, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ultabeautyprod.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 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@ultabeautyprod.com. Also on June 16, 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 July 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Since opening its first store more than 30 years ago, Complainant has become the largest beauty retailer in the United States. Complainant has established statutory rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,262,918, registered July 10, 2007). Complainant also possesses extensive common law trademark rights in the ULTA and ULTA BEAUTY marks, which embody substantial and long-established goodwill. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it wholly incorporates Complainant's mark with the mere addition of the letters "prod" (likely an abbreviation for "products") and the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use the ULTA BEAUTY mark. Furthermore, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is not utilizing the disputed domain name in connection with any active website. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive holding page provided by a website hosting service, which displays links to the service's website. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark when it acquired the disputed domain name. It is undeniable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which includes the ULTA BEAUTY mark, with Complainant and its ULTA BEAUTY mark clearly in mind. Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. It is highly possible that, with the registration of the disputed domain name, Respondent has access to "@ultabeautyprod.com" email addresses, which Respondent could easily use to pass itself off as Complainant, or otherwise confuse Complainant's customers with fraudulent emails. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2026. 2. Complainant has established statutory rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,262,918, registered July 10, 2007). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive holding page provided by a website hosting service, which displays links to the service's website. 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 3.1 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 Complainant asserts rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,262,918, registered July 10, 2007). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Because Complainant has submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <ultabeautyprod.com> is confusingly similar to the ULTA BEAUTY mark, because it wholly incorporates Complainant's mark with the mere addition of the letters "prod" (likely an abbreviation for "products") and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term, or a misspelled term thereof, and a gTLD generally fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Accordingly, the Panel accepts Complainant's contention and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ULTA BEAUTY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "swapnil jadhav / vctechnmedia" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive holding page provided by a website hosting service, which displays links to the service's website. The Panel finds that Respondent has full control over the use of the disputed domain name, including the content of the resolving website, and remains responsible for the operation of the website in association with the disputed domain name. Therefore, the resolution of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's long-standing trademark to an inactive holding page provided by a website registrar's hosting service, which displays links to the service's website, fails to 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). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. Collectively, these factors substantiate the prima facie case against Respondent. Because Respondent has failed to file a response or attempt by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent's failure to make active use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. As previously noted, Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive holding page provided by a registrar's hosting service, which displays links to the service's website. The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use). The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following: i) 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 ULTA BEAUTY marks. 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 its own private label. As of June 10, 2026, Complainant operates 1,500 retail stores across 50 states and the District of Columbia, and distributes its products through its website. Complainant heavily markets its goods and services under the ULTA marks on social media platforms; ii) Respondent has full control over the use of the disputed domain name, including the content of the resolving website, and remains responsible for the operation of the website in association with the disputed domain name; and iii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain name. In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ULTA BEAUTY mark at the time of registration, in light of the notoriety of Complainant's marks. While UDRP precedent does not recognize constructive knowledge alone as a basis for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge may suffice to support such a finding under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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 AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).). The Panel infers from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's inactive use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration, supporting a finding of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 <ultabeautyprod.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 8, 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.