Equifax Inc. v Alejandro Martinez, Equifax

WIPO Case No. D2025-1164

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Equifax Inc. v. Alejandro Martinez, Equifax

Case No. D2025-1164

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Alejandro Martinez, Equifax, Colombia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <equifax.space> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2025. On March 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 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 an amendment to the Complaint on March 26, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint 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 March 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on April 22, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Erick Iriarte as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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

Complainant is a company provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers, was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia (USA) in 1913, and its predecessor company dates back to 1899.

Annex 9 of the Complaint includes a large list of trademarks registered by the Complainant around the world.

Complainant said they “owns at least 221 trademark registrations in at least 56 jurisdictions around
the world for marks that consist of or contain the word “Equifax”, which was first used in commerce and
registered in 1975”. All the trademarks in this case were registered before the registration of

the disputed domain name (March 7, 2025).

Particularly, the Panel refers to the following EQUIFAX trademark registrations as reference:

Colombian Trademarks:

Register Number: 185350
Register Date: March 18, 1996

Class: 35

Register Number: 185353
Register Date: March 18, 1996

Class: 42

Register Number: 185349
Register Date: March 18, 1996

Class: 16

Register Number: 185351
Register Date: March 18, 1996

Class: 38

The disputed domain name <equifax.space> was created on March 7, 2025.	It was registered by Alejandro
Martinez and the registrant organization is shown as “Equifax”.

The disputed domain name is currently still in use. The disputed domain name is linked to a website displaying the Complainant’s logo and using a similar color scheme that the Complainant uses on its own website, along with a form box that says (translated f rom Spanish), “Enter your document number to

validate.”.

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.

page 3

Notably, the Complainant contends that that the disputed domain name is completely identical to its trademark registered in various jurisdictions, including that of the disputed domain name holder. It has also indicated that the use of the disputed domain name involves potential impersonation and possible use of the disputed domain name for phishing.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 of WIPO Panel

Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain

name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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

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 difficult 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 shif ts 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 satisfied 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Panel f inds that the Complainant’s trademark EQUIFAX is widely known, the oldest of which

was used and registered 50 years ago. Therefore, the Panel finds that is implausible that the Respondent

was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case : impersonation constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 <equifax.space> be transferred to the Complainant

/Erick Iriarte/ Erick Iriarte Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2025