Officialskyepeptides.com

The timeline behind officialskyepeptides.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. Matt Junior Claim Number: FA2607002234869 PARTIES Complainant is Skye Research, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joel Rapaport, California, USA. Respondent is Matt Junior ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <officialskyepeptides.com>, registered with Cloudflare, 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2026; Forum received payment on July 25, 2026. On July 27, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 July 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@officialskyepeptides.com. Also on July 28, 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 August 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent's <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKYE PEPTIDES mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant provides research-use peptides and holds an application for the SKYE PEPTIDES mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Serial. No. 99693364, filed March 10, 2026). Complainant has used the mark continuously in commerce since 2022. Complainant conducts business at <skyepeptides.com>. Respondent registered the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name on July 7, 2026, and uses it to compete with Complainant. 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 3.1 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 claims common law rights in the SKYE PEPTIDES mark based on continuous use since 2022. Complainant conducts business at <skyepeptides.com>. Complainant provides a sworn Declaration from its Chief Technical Officer detailing its development of and investment in the SKYE PEPTIDES brand, including the mark and related logo, and the content and trade dress of its website, which has been copied by Respondent. Complainant has demonstrated that it has significant product-related online presence and has become a source indicator for research-use peptides. Complainant has a pending trademark application for SKYE PEPTIDES. The Panel notes that several other UDRP panels have found that Complainant has rights in the SKYE PEPTIDES mark. The Panel also notes that there is no opposition to Complainant's claim of trademark rights in the SKYE PEPTIDES mark and finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the mark. See THEGVGALLERY LLC v. Natalya Jack / HubPort, FA 141234 (Forum March 17, 2025) (finding that evidence of at least some measure of reputation with the public can meet the threshold for establishing common law rights, particularly where respondent has not responded and has directly targeted the complainant's mark with intent to trade off of the goodwill established in the mark). Respondent's <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name uses Complainant's entire SKYE PEPTIDES mark and simply adds "official" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel finds that Respondent's <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKYE PEPTIDES mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the SKYE PEPTIDES mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Matt Junior". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain name to pass off goods as those of Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and to offer competing goods, using Complainant's marks and images. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name in bad faith by using it to pass off as and compete with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a site that passes off as complainant's evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.") Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SKYE PEPTIDES mark, since Respondent uses Complainant's mark and images to pass off as and directly compete with Complainant, and which constitutes further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <officialskyepeptides.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: August 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.