Equifax Inc. v Shi Lei

WIPO Case No. D2025-0382

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Equifax Inc. v. Shi Lei

Case No. D2025-0382

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by The

GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Shi Lei, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <mtequifax.com> and <muequifax.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2025. amendment to the Complaint on February 4, 2025.

On January 31, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain names. On February 1, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names
which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on February 3, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied 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 notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 27, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Indrek Eelmets as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2025. The Panel finds 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 a major consumer credit reporting agency based in the United States. Founded in 1899 and incorporated in Georgia, United States, in 1913, it operates or has investments in 24 countries across the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. In 2023, the Complainant’s revenues amounted to USD 5.265 billion.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for EQUIFAX in many countries around the world, such as:

- EQUIFAX: U.S. Reg. No. 1,027,544 (first used in commerce March 4, 1975; registered December 16,
1975) for use in connection with “insurance risk information reporting services concerning potential
policy holders.”

- EQUIFAX: U.S. Reg. No. 1,045,574 (first used in commerce March 4, 1975; registered August 3, 1976) for use in connection with “conducting investigations and reporting on individuals and firms concerning credit, character and finances…”

- EQUIFAX: U.S. Reg. No. 1,644,585 (first used in commerce March 4, 1975; registered May 14,
1991) for use in connection with, inter alia, “providing on-line access to computer databases containing
information relating to applicants for insurance, credit, mortgage loans, and employment.”

The Complainant operates the domain name <equifax.com> which was registered on February 21, 1995.

The disputed domain names were registered on March 9, 2019. At the time this Complaint was submitted the disputed domain names resolve to a website hosting pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to third-party websites, and, as evidenced in the Complaint, mail exchange (“MX”) records have been configured for the disputed

domain names.

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 names.

Altria Group, Inc. and 16 Altria Group Distribution Company v. Emerson Terry, WIPO Case No. D2021-0045. In addition, the Complainant notes that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost numerous proceedings under the Policy.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark, cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Further, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names have MX records, suggesting potential email use for phishing purposes. At least two security vendors have reported that the disputed domain name <muequifax.com> is associated with phishing activities. This indicates bad faith, because it “gives rise to the strong possibility that Respondent intended or intends to use the disputed domain name[s] to send emails as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme.”
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names, and
that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent is not
authorized by the Complainant to use the EQUIFAX trademark, or to register and use the disputed domain
names incorporating this trademark. By using the disputed domain names in connection with a PPC or

monetized parking page that includes links for various services related to Complainant and/or the EQUIFAX

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.

page 3

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 first 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The disputed domain names contain the EQUIFAX trademark in its entirety, simply adding the letters “mt” or

“mu.” The additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel finds the first 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 often 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 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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.

page 4

In the present case, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the EQUIFAX trademark and the the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s mark.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Finally, at the time of filing of the Complaint, and the time of making this Decision, the disputed domain names direct to websites with PPC links related to services, such as credit report services. The Complainant’s mark is protected and used for the same services. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known mark, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

According to the Complainant, some security vendors have reported that the disputed domain name
<muequifax.com> is associated with phishing activities. This reinforces the Panel’s finding of the

Respondent’s bad faith.

The Panel finds 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 names <mtequifax.com> and <muequifax.com> be transferred to the

Complainant.

/Indrek Eelmets/
Indrek Eelmets
Sole Panelist
Date: March 18, 2025