Carrot Fertility, Inc. v Slava Stolov

WIPO Case No. D2025-2505

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrot Fertility, Inc. v. Slava Stolov

Case No. D2025-2505

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrot Fertility, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Slava Stolov, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <app-get-carrot.com> is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2025. On June 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 28, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 29, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled amended Complaints on June 27, 2025, July 1, and July 7, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints satisf ied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on July 29, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Phillip V. Marano as the sole panelist in this matter on August 4, 2025. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an American corporation that provides a global fertility healthcare and family-forming benef its platform for employers and health plans. The Complainant offers information about its services on its off icial <get-carrot.com> domain name, and hosts its platform on its of f icial <app.get-carrot.com> subdomain. The Complainant owns a valid and subsisting registration for the CARROT trademark in the United States, specif ically US Reg. No. 7,036,800, registered on April 25, 2023 with the earliest priority dating back to January 1, 2016.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 12, 2025. At the time of this Complaint, the disputed domain name did not resolve to any website content. However, the Complainant prof fered uncontroverted evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a “Welcome Back” login screen which solicited Internet user emails, inquired “New to Carrot? Sign Up” and made unauthorized use of the Complainant’s stylized CARROT trademark.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant asserts ownership of the CARROT trademark and has adduced evidence of trademark registration, dated back to April 25, 2023 with the earliest priority dating back to January 1, 2016.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARROT trademark, according to the Complainant, because it “closely mimics the structure and wording of the Complainant’s of f icial subdomain by substituting hyphens for dots” in addition to “the inclusion of the Complainant’s registered trademark CARROT”.

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on: the lack of any relationship with the Complainant; the lack of any license, permission, or authorization from the Complainant; the lack of any evidence that the Respondent, who hid its identity through a proxy service, is known by the disputed domain name; and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with illegal activity, namely impersonation and website phishing.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for numerous reasons, including: the Respondent’s intentional targeting of the Complainant to mimic the Complainant’s official <app.get-carrot.com> platform location; the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with illegal activity, namely impersonation and website phishing; and the Respondent’s use of a proxy registration service to avoid detection and f rustrate the Complainant’s

trademark enforcement ef forts.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must establish in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy:

i.         The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights;

ii.        The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

iii.       The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Although the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the burden remains with the Complainant to establish by a balance of probabilities, or a preponderance of the evidence, all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0“), section 4.3 (“A respondent’s default would not by itself

mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. UDRP panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case, e.g., where a particular conclusion is
prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no
other plausible conclusion is apparent.”); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No.
D2002-1064 (“The Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the
complainant. The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph

4(a)”).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to f ile this Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the CARROT trademark has been registered in the United States as of April 25, 2023, with priority dating back to January 1, 2016, nearly ten years before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent. Thus, the Panel f inds that the Complainant’s rights in the CARROT trademark have been established pursuant to the f irst element of the Policy.

The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARROT trademark. In this Complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARROT trademark because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is

recognizable within the domain name … [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar...”). gTLDs, such as “.com” in the disputed domain name, are generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and are disregarded under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The confusing similarity is not dispelled by combination with the terms “app” and “get”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (Additional terms “whether descriptive, geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name).

The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the dif f icult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Where, as in this Complaint, the Respondent fails to come forward with any relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

It is evident that the Respondent, identif ied by registration data for the disputed domain name as “Slava Stolov”, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Complainant’s CARROT trademark.

UDRP panels have categorically held that use of a domain name for illegal activity—including the impersonation of the complainant and other types of fraud—can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Circumstantial evidence can support a credible claim made by the Complainant asserting the Respondent is engaged in such illegal activity, including that the Respondent has masked its identity to avoid being contactable, or that the Respondent’s website has been suspended by its hosting provider. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. See e.g. Graybar Services Inc. v. Graybar Elec, Grayberinc Lawrenge, WIPO Case No. D2009-1017 (“Respondent has used the domain name to pretend that it is the Complainant and in particular to create false emails pretending that they are genuine emails coming f rom the Complainant and one of its senior executives”). See also The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2017-0501 (“In addition, the disputed domain names … have had their web hosting suspended as a result of fraudulent activities. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.”). To this end, as discussed below, the second and third elements of the Policy may be assessed together where clear indicia of bad faith suggests that there cannot be any Respondent rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.15.

The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name:

i.         Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a

competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s
documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

ii.        The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

page 5

iii.       The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

iv.       By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.

Wrongful use of others’ trademarks to extort information from unsuspecting and unwary people, by using the disputed domain name for phishing activity, is considered abusive registration of the disputed domain name under the Policy. See CareerBuilder, LLC v. Stephen Baker, WIPO Case No. D2005-0251; The Boots

Company, PLC v. The programmer adviser, WIPO Case No. D2009-1383; WSI Holdings Ltd. v. WSI House, Case No. D2004-1089 (“Respondent appears to be engaged in “phishing” for mistaken potential employees of the Complainant … Respondent (1) has adopted a confusingly similar domain name, (2) it has used the trade dress of the Complainant’s website, and (3) it has sought to attract users to its site by creating

confusion between its site and the Complainant’s. It has clearly engaged in activity which fulfils the bad faith requirements of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC v. Wu Yanmei, WIPO Case No. D2015-0177 (emails sent by the respondent from domain names using the complainant’s trademark in an attempt to obtain the complainant’s customer information was held to be use of the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme and consequently bad faith under the Policy); AB Electrolux v. Piotr Pardo, WIPO Case No. D2017-0368 (engaging in fraudulent email phishing activities through unauthorized use of a trademark for obtaining data or deriving information is construed as bad faith under the Policy).

Here, the Complainant has proffered persuasive and uncontroverted evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity. Specifically, the Complainant submitted evidence that: the Respondent conf igured the disputed domain name to resolve to website content that make

unauthorized use of the Complainant’s stylized CARROT trademark in connection with a purported login page for the Complainant’s customers; the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name to mimic the Complainant’s of f icial <app.get-carrot.com> domain name and online platform subdomain.

In addition, where it appears that a respondent employs a privacy or proxy service, or purposefully selects a Registrar that applies privacy or proxy services by default, merely to avoid being notif ied of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, UDRP panels tend to f ind that this supports an inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.6. Use of such a service to shield a respondent’s identity and elude or f rustrate enforcement efforts by a legitimate complainant is further evidence of bad faith use and registration of a disputed domain name. See Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696 (the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the identity of the real party in interest is also consistent with an inference of bad faith when combined with other evidence of evasive, illegal, or irresponsible conduct).

The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <app-get-carrot.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Phillip V. Marano/
Phillip V. Marano
Sole Panelist
Date: August 20, 2025