Powerlifenutrition.com

The timeline behind powerlifenutrition.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 THGH Partners, LLC d/b/a Power Life Nutrition v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Claim Number: FA2609002245240 PARTIES Complainant is THGH Partners, LLC d/b/a Power Life Nutrition ("Complainant"), represented by Peter Long, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Panama. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <powerlifenutrition.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 14, 2026; Forum received payment on September 14, 2026. On September 16, 2026, Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. 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 September 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 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@powerlifenutrition.com. Also on September 17, 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 October 8, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 states that it is a health and wellness brand that has offered dietary and nutritional supplements, including products designed to support sports performance and nutrition, since January 2020 under the trademarks POWERLIFE and POWER LIFE, and it submits an archived screenshot of its own website at <mypowerlife.com> as it appeared in February 2020. Complainant also uses the trade name "Power Life Nutrition" which it registered as a fictitious business name with Los Angeles County, California in August 2019 and which appears on its product packaging and website. It owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registrations for its marks, including Reg. No. 6038787 dated April 21, 2020 for the word mark POWERLIFE, and Reg. No. 6589264 dated December 14, 2021 for the word mark POWER LIFE. The disputed domain name, registered on October 19, 2020, is confusingly similar to the POWERLIFE and POWER LIFE marks as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only the descriptive term "nutrition", which relates directly to Complainant's goods, along with the ".com" TLD. The domain name is also identical to Complainant's trade name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, Complainant has not authorized it to use the POWERLIFE or POWER LIFE marks or the "Power Life Nutrition" trade name, and its use of the domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to redirect internet users to websites that display false virus and security alerts and that attempt to deliver malware to visitors' devices; to a page of pay-per-click links; and, at other times, to no content at all. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. It states that Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's registered mark, and likely actual knowledge as the domain name is identical to Complainant's trade name; that Respondent uses the domain name to redirect users to fraudulent and malicious websites and to pay-per-click links in an attempt to attract users for commercial gain; that the passive holding of the domain name is further evidence of bad faith; that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct as shown by at least 156 prior adverse UDRP decisions against it before Forum; and that Respondent's use of a privacy service to conceal its identity while engaging in such conduct further supports a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS − Complainant owns registered trademark rights to its POWERLIFE and POWER LIFE marks and the <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the marks; − Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it uses the domain name to redirect internet users to websites that display false security alerts and attempt to distribute malware, as well as to a page of pay-per-click links that relate to Complainant's goods; and − The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's POWERLIFE mark, it uses the domain name to redirect users to malicious websites and to pay-per-click links for commercial gain based on confusion with Complainant's mark, it has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, and it hides its identity behind a privacy service. 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 asserts rights in its POWERLIFE and POWER LIFE marks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.") Here, Complainant submits copies of its USPTO registration certificates for Reg. No. 6038787, dated April 21, 2020, for the standard character mark POWERLIFE, and Reg. No. 6589264, dated December 14, 2021, for the standard character mark POWER LIFE. Each covers dietary and nutritional supplements and claims a first use in commerce date of January 5, 2020. It is noted that the POWER LIFE registration issued after the disputed domain name was registered on October 19, 2020. However, the first element of the Policy serves as a threshold or standing requirement and the date on which a complainant acquired its trademark rights does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under this element. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.1.3. The timing of this registration is, however, relevant to the third element and is addressed further below. Complainant also refers to its "Power Life Nutrition" trade name and to its 2019 fictitious business name filing with Los Angeles County. As such a filing does not, by itself, create trademark rights, and as Complainant has not submitted evidence of the sort needed to show that this trade name has acquired secondary meaning as a mark, the Panel will rely upon Complainant's registered marks for purposes of this element. Complainant's use of the trade name will nevertheless be considered in the Panel's analysis of bad faith. Based on the submitted registration certificates, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the POWERLIFE and POWER LIFE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its marks. The disputed domain name includes the entirety of the POWERLIFE mark (and the POWER LIFE mark, as the space between its two words cannot be reproduced in a domain name), adds the word "nutrition" after it, and concludes with the ".com" TLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic or descriptive term, along with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") Far from distinguishing the domain name from Complainant's marks, the word "nutrition" describes the very goods that Complainant offers under its marks and it thus reinforces the connection between the two. The mark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name and, as such, the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 or legitimate interests in the <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the POWERLIFE or POWER LIFE marks. WHOIS information is often referenced when considering whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Further, where the WHOIS record identifies only a privacy service as the registrant, there is no basis upon which to find that a respondent is commonly known by the domain name. See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) ("The Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists a privacy service as registrant. In light of Respondent's failure to provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds there is no basis to find Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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)"). The WHOIS record submitted by Complainant, and the information verified to Forum by the concerned Registrar, identify the registrant only as "Domain Administrator" of "Fundacion Privacy Services LTD" in Panama City, Panama, and this bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. Complainant further states that it "has never authorized Respondent to use the 'PowerLife' or 'Power Life' trademarks in the Disputed Domain Name or in any other way, nor authorized Respondent to use Complainant's 'Power Life Nutrition' trade name." Respondent has not filed a Response in this case and so it does not dispute Complainant's assertions or supplement the available evidence. Therefore, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because it redirects internet users to websites that display false security warnings and that attempt to install malicious software on visitors' devices. A domain name is not being used to make a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), where it redirects users to a website that attempts to install malicious software. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") In support of its contention, Complainant submits sequential screenshots, captured from screen recordings made on September 9 and 10, 2026, which show what happens when the disputed domain name is entered into a web browser. On a desktop computer, the browser is passed through a series of intermediary addresses, including one at <affilarum.online> whose URL parameters include the terms "utm_source=rollerads" and "utm_medium=paid", and it then arrives at a page at <resolvemacissue.on-forge.com> that imitates Apple's own Mac website, complete with its navigation bar and the slogan "If you can dream it, Mac can do it." Over this page appear a series of overlapping pop-up boxes headed "Apple Security" and "Mac Security Center" which announce, in red text, "System affected by security breach (Error Code: 16JPsy7)" and "Access to the system is restricted for protection purposes." The visitor is told to "Please contact Apple Support: Call us directly" at a toll-free number which is repeated in a box at the lower right of the screen labeled "Mac Support" and "(Security Help Desk)" and again in a blue banner across the bottom of the screen reading "Mac Security Dial Apple Support". A further dialog box asks "Are you leaving the site?" in an apparent effort to discourage the visitor from navigating away. On an iPhone, the browser is first directed to a page at <stock-trading-tools.com> reading "Verification Required", "Checking if you're a real user..." and "Verified! Redirecting...", and then to a page at <neuroredir.com> where a pop-up alert states "Your iPhone has been hacked", "All your activity on the device is being tracked by a hacker", and "Immediate action is required!" This is followed by a page bearing the Apple logo and the heading "Apple Security" which warns "A hacker is tracking you!" and threatens that, unless the problem is resolved within two minutes, the hacker will send the user's browsing history and front camera photos to all of their contacts. A countdown timer reads "1 minute 40 seconds" and the visitor is instructed to click a "Protect Connection" button, be redirected to the App Store, and "Install the recommended protection app, open it and repair your iPhone." Complainant further submits a report from the Hybrid Analysis service, generated on September 10 and 11, 2026, which assigns the URL of the disputed domain name a "Malicious" rating with a threat score of 100 out of 100. The report shows that each of three sandbox environments (macOS Tahoe, Windows 11, and Windows 10) independently rated the URL as malicious, and it lists two malicious indicators: the detection of "Fake CAPTCHA" functionality hosted on a domain identified as malicious, which the report states is a strong indication of an active phishing campaign, and contact with the domain <netguardsite.com>, which the report also identifies as malicious. On the macOS sandbox, the report further lists suspicious behavior including the creation of a hidden file in the Application Support directory, the dropping of a compressed file onto the system, and an attempt to access system profile configuration. Although the report notes that none of six URL scanners flagged the domain name, the Panel finds the results of the sandbox analysis, together with the screenshots described above, to be credible evidence that the disputed domain name is being used to direct internet users to fraudulent security warnings and to attempt the delivery of malicious software. Complainant also submits a screenshot showing that, at other times, the disputed domain name has resolved to a page displaying the domain name above the heading "Related Searches" and a column of pay-per-click links titled "NATURAL SUPPLEMENTS", "NATURAL HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS", "DIET MEAL PLANS", "MEAL PLANS FOR WEIGHT LOSS", and "BEST NATURAL HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS". Where a respondent uses a domain name to display a pay-per-click page with links to third-party products or services, panels often find that the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA 1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business). Here, the displayed links relate directly to the dietary and nutritional supplements that Complainant sells under its marks. A further screenshot shows that, on yet another occasion, a browser attempting to reach the disputed domain name received the message "This site can't be reached" and "powerlifenutrition.com refused to connect." Such an absence of content adds nothing to Respondent's claim to any rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has set out an unrebutted prima facie case and that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark, as the POWERLIFE mark was registered with the USPTO before the disputed domain name was registered. However, the Panel declines to base a finding of bad faith upon constructive notice. Rather, some attribution of actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark is a prerequisite to a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 12.03-A.4 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, June 1, 2026) (noting that UDRP jurisprudence rejects constructive knowledge and "requires more definite proof that respondent had the complainant in mind"); see also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.") Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Because the POWER LIFE registration (Reg. No. 6589264) issued more than a year after the disputed domain name was created, the Panel does not rely upon that registration in assessing Respondent's knowledge at the time of registration. Instead, it looks to Complainant's POWERLIFE registration, which issued on April 21, 2020, and to Complainant's use of the POWERLIFE mark and its "Power Life Nutrition" trade name beginning in January 2020. The WHOIS record shows that the disputed domain name was created on October 19, 2020, roughly nine months after Complainant began using its mark and six months after its POWERLIFE registration issued, and nothing in the record suggests that it has changed hands since that date. It is recognized that the words "power" and "life" are common English terms and that Complainant's brand was relatively new when the disputed domain name was registered. Further, the Complaint offers little in the way of evidence regarding the reputation of its mark, such as sales or advertising figures or media coverage. Nevertheless, the archived screenshot of Complainant's website as it appeared on February 13, 2020 displays the POWER LIFE logo along with images of Complainant's supplement products, and its footer bears the notice "© Power Life Nutrition 2020. All Rights Reserved." The disputed domain name replicates this exact trade name and, when it is not redirecting users to malicious content, it displays pay-per-click links to "NATURAL SUPPLEMENTS" and similar goods, i.e., the very products that Complainant offers. Considering the precise correspondence between the disputed domain name and Complainant's trade name, the links relating to supplements that are displayed on Respondent's page, Respondent's extensive history of adverse UDRP decisions (discussed further below), and Respondent's failure to come forward with any explanation for its choice of the domain name, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's POWERLIFE mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith. Next, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name in bad faith because it redirects internet users to websites displaying fraudulent security warnings and attempting to deliver malware. Bad faith use, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), may be found under such circumstances. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent's undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names."); see also WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4 (noting that use of a domain name for purposes such as the distribution of malware constitutes bad faith). As described in the previous section of this decision, the screenshots submitted by Complainant show that the disputed domain name leads visitors, through a chain of intermediary sites, to pages that impersonate Apple, falsely claim that the visitor's device has been breached or hacked, urge the visitor to call a purported support number or install a so-called protection app, and use countdown timers and alarming language to pressure the visitor into acting quickly. The Hybrid Analysis report confirms the malicious nature of this redirection. The appearance of the terms "utm_source=rollerads" and "utm_medium=paid" in one of the intermediary URLs further indicates that the traffic attracted by the disputed domain name is being monetized through an advertising network. By using a domain name that reflects Complainant's mark and trade name to attract internet users, some of whom are presumably seeking Complainant's supplements, and then exposing them to such fraudulent content for commercial gain, Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and, more generally, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant further argues that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to display pay-per-click links is evidence of bad faith. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing third-party goods or services is often evidence of an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.") As noted above, the pay-per-click page resolving from the disputed domain name displays links for natural supplements and related goods that compete with those offered by Complainant under its mark. Based upon this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent seeks commercial gain by attracting internet users based upon confusion with Complainant's mark and that it registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant also asserts that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct. Where a respondent is found to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, such as through previous adverse UDRP proceedings against it, and has prevented a complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, panels have found bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding that, where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants, this established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant submits a spreadsheet, generated from the Forum's online decision search facility, which lists 156 UDRP decisions issued since 2018 in which Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD was the named respondent and the disputed domain names were ordered transferred. These include such recent cases as Docebo S.P.A. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2208232 (Forum Mar. 25, 2026) (<docebosass.com>); Kaseya Limited v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2229450 (Forum Aug. 4, 2026) (<kasyea.com>); and Andersen Corporation v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2232095 (Forum Aug. 18, 2026) (<renewablyandersen.com>). The Panel recognizes that the named Respondent is a privacy service and that it is possible that some of these cases involved different underlying registrants. However, the concerned Registrar has not disclosed any underlying registrant in this case and Respondent has not come forward to distinguish itself from the respondent in those many prior cases. Having chosen to shield its identity in this manner, Respondent cannot now complain that the record of adverse decisions issued against that same name is attributed to it. See Discover Financial Services v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, D2021-1514 (WIPO July 2, 2021) (noting that it would be inherently unfair for a registrant to complain that its dispute is decided together with those of other registrants where it has used a privacy service that refuses to disclose their separate identities). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct which has, in this case, prevented Complainant from reflecting its mark, together with the descriptive term that completes its trade name, in a corresponding domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent's use of a privacy service to conceal its identity while engaging in the above conduct further supports a finding of bad faith. The use of a privacy service is not, in itself, evidence of bad faith as there are many legitimate reasons why a domain name registrant may wish to keep its personal information from public view. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, supra, at 1.04-B.1 (noting that privacy services alone do not support a conclusion of bad faith "but it may if the intent for acquiring the domain name is to target the value of the mark"); see also WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.6. However, where a privacy service is used to shield a respondent that is engaged in fraudulent or malicious activity, this may serve as supplemental evidence of bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. ICS INC, FA 1698162 (Forum Nov. 23, 2016) (finding that, where the respondent's domain name resolved to a website that attempted to engage in phishing or the installation of malware, these circumstances supported a finding of bad faith from the respondent's use of a privacy service). Further, the panel in Discover Financial Services, supra, which involved the same privacy service and the same Registrar as in the present case, observed that the Registrar had not disclosed the underlying registrant in any of the more than 170 UDRP cases then decided against Fundacion Privacy Services LTD and it concluded that the use of this particular service "arguably now carries with it a presumption of bad faith registration and use." Here, the Registrar's verification to Forum again failed to reveal any underlying registrant and Respondent has used its anonymity to direct internet users to fraudulent security warnings and malicious software. Therefore, while the Panel's findings above are sufficient on their own, it finds that Respondent's use of a privacy service in the present circumstances provides further support for the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 <powerlifenutrition.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: October 10, 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.