Udemyy.com

The timeline behind udemyy.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.

FA2607002230697 DECISION Udemy, Inc. v. Dynadot Privacy Service Claim Number: FA2607002230697 PARTIES Complainant is Udemy, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chris Civil of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Dynadot Privacy Service ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <udemyy.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. 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 L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 2, 2026. Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 7, 2026, following receipt of the Registrar's verification response. On July 7, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <udemyy.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by its 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 July 8, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@udemyy.com. Also on July 8, 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 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges: That it is one of the largest global online learning destinations. Founded in 2010, Complainant operates a marketplace platform offering over 290,000 courses in 78 languages, serving 84 million learners and enabling a global cohort of 90,000 instructors. Its Udemy Business platform provides subscription access to more than 29,000 courses and is used by more than half of the Fortune 100. Complainant is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol UDMY and reported fiscal 2024 revenue of approximately US $786 million. Complainant owns the coined mark UDEMY and trademark registrations for the mark throughout the world, the first granted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office on July 1, 2012, and operates its website at <udemy.com>. That the Disputed Domain Name <udemyy.com> is confusingly similar to the UDEMY mark. It differs from the mark, and from Complainant's own <udemy.com> domain name, only by the addition of a second letter "y" at the end, a misspelling amounting to typosquatting that is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent registered it on March 16, 2026, more than a decade after Complainant began using the UDEMY name and mark. WHOIS information identifies Respondent only as "Dynadot Privacy Service." Respondent holds no trademark rights in UDEMY anywhere in the world, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has never been licensed or permitted to use the UDEMY mark. The Disputed Domain Name has been used to redirect Internet users to Complainant's actual website, and has on other occasions redirected to webpages that convey false security messages. Neither use is 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). That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of the UDEMY mark, which has been registered since 2012 and has been recognized by prior panels as well known. Respondent's typosquatting, its redirection of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant's own website, and its use of the Disputed Domain Name to display false security messages each evidence bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Respondent has also configured MX records for the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant is concerned that the Disputed Domain Name is or will be used as part of a phishing scheme. Respondent's use of a WHOIS privacy service, which has continued to shield its identity even after the filing of this proceeding, further supports a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: The chart of trademark registrations in the record shows that Complainant owns registrations for the UDEMY mark in numerous jurisdictions, including United States Reg. No. 4,314,406, registered on April 2, 2013, and registrations in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, and elsewhere. On the uncontested record, Complainant's first registration for the mark was granted in the European Union on July 1, 2012. UDEMY is a coined term: search results in the record for the word "Udemy" point only to Complainant. Complainant's Form 10-K dated February 19, 2026, contained in the record, shows a platform serving 84 million learners with over 290,000 courses offered by some 90,000 instructors, fiscal 2024 revenue of approximately US $786 million, and a listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol UDMY. On this evidence, the UDEMY mark is distinctive and widely known. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 16, 2026. The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant only as "Dynadot Privacy Service," the name of a privacy service, which bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, or that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the UDEMY mark. Screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name has redirected Internet users to Complainant's own website at <udemy.com>. Other screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name has instead resolved to a webpage styled as an "Apple Technical Support Center," displaying false security alerts, including a purported "unsafe file" warning and an "Access Denied for security Reasons" message, and urging visitors to call a telephone "support line" (the "Respondent's Website"). DNS lookup results in the record show that MX records are configured for the Disputed Domain Name, enabling it to send and receive e-mail. On this record, that configuration evidences the risk of phishing or other e-mail fraud. 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). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the UDEMY mark through its trademark registrations, including its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1; see also Udemy, Inc. v. Maxclimb Maxclimb / Jumbo Ads, FA 2136358 (Forum Feb. 13, 2025) (finding rights in the UDEMY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the UDEMY mark in its entirety, adding only a second letter "y" at the end. This is typosquatting: a misspelling of the mark, and of Complainant's own <udemy.com> domain name, that leaves the overall impression of the mark intact. The addition of a single letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Havtech Group, LLC v. Goldsmith, Garrett, FA 2094713 (Forum May 22, 2024) (finding <havvtech.com> confusingly similar to the HAVTECH mark where the domain name "differs from the trademark merely by an additional letter"); WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.9. The gTLD ".com" is disregarded in the comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's UDEMY 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, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1. The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant only by the name of a privacy service, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). On the uncontested record, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been licensed or authorized to use the UDEMY mark. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding no legitimate interest where the respondent was not known by the disputed domain name and the complainant had never authorized the respondent to use its mark). Nor does the use shown in the record confer rights or legitimate interests. Redirecting a typosquatted domain name to Complainant's own website serves no purpose of Respondent's other than to trade on the resemblance between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant's mark, and is not 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 same is true of the Respondent's Website, with its false security alerts. See Zynga Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1650448 (Forum Jan. 14, 2016) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the resolving website redirected Internet users to websites associated with malware and scareware). Respondent, in default, has offered nothing to rebut the prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 16, 2026, some fourteen years after Complainant's first registration of the UDEMY mark. UDEMY is a coined term with no meaning apart from Complainant, and Respondent's conduct in redirecting the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant's own website confirms that it was aware of Complainant when it registered the name. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4. Respondent's registration of a minor misspelling of the mark constitutes typosquatting, which is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting and thereby registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith). The record shows two uses, each in bad faith. First, the Disputed Domain Name has redirected to Complainant's own website at <udemy.com>. This Panel has previously found that redirecting a disputed domain name to a complainant's official website constitutes bad faith. See Phillips 66 Company v. TD Philips, FA 2208398 (Forum Apr. 1, 2026) (ordering transfer where a typosquatted domain name redirected to the complainant's own website and had been configured with MX records). Second, the Respondent's Website confronts visitors, who arrive there by mistyping Complainant's domain name, with false security alerts and a telephone number to call for purported technical support. Exploiting confusion with Complainant's mark to press false security warnings on Internet users is use in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See John Stamos v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services / Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1618847 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to a webpage featuring a fake virus warning and pop-up windows promoting a phishing scheme). MX records have been configured for the Disputed Domain Name, enabling it to send and receive e-mail. No e-mail sent from the Disputed Domain Name is in evidence, and the Panel accordingly treats the configuration as corroborative only: taken together with the typosquatted string, the redirection to Complainant's website, and the false security alerts on the Respondent's Website, the MX configuration evidences the risk of phishing or other e-mail fraud. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.4; Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1940361 (Forum May 3, 2021) (noting that e-mail capability is not needed for a parked domain and leads to an inference of bad faith intent). Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service, and its identity has remained shielded even after the filing of the Complaint. In the context of the other factors present, this provides further support for a finding of bad faith. See Microsoft Corporation v. Arif Khan, FA 1907105 (Forum Aug. 31, 2020) ("in the context of this case Respondent's use of a WHOIS privacy service further supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)"). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in 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 <udemyy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: July 29, 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.