Scribd, Inc. v Hanzala Hassan

WIPO Case No. D2025-3298

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Scribd, Inc. v. Hanzala Hassan

Case No. D2025-3298

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Scribd, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by IPLA, United

States.

The Respondent is Hanzala Hassan, Pakistan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <slidedl.com> 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 August 15, 2025. On August 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 19, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 21, 2025.

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 August 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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 and its successors have operated a presentation sharing platform under the mark

SLIDESHARE since 2006, with over 28 million downloads to date.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for SLIDESHARE including United States

Registration No. 4,212,895, registered on September 25, 2012, in classes 9, 35, and 42.

The Complainant operates a website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on February 21, 2025.

As of August 7, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was branded “Slide DL”, and which bore the heading: “Slide DL - Your Free Slideshare Downloader”. The site invited users to download Slideshare presentations for free “without the hassle of logins or paid subscriptions” by inputting the presentation’s URL from the Complainant’s site. The site also displayed what appeared to be sponsored advertisements.

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.

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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

A dominant feature of the mark, namely the term “slide”, is reproduced within the disputed domain name.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

page 3

Furthermore, the overall facts and circumstances of a case, including the content of the Respondent’s
website supports a finding of confusing similarity as it indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed
domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark – as the Respondent’s website specifically target the Complainant’s users.

WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.15.

Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “dl”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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 recognised 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 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.

As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed in section 6C below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case.

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.

In the present case, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

page 4

Not only does the disputed domain name comprise a dominant part of the Complainant’s mark plus the term “dl” denoting download, but the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that expressly targets the Complainant’s users with a service enabling them to download content from the Complainant’s

site without logging in or subscribing, and which displays what appear to be sponsored advertisements.

The likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the likelihood that users arriving at the Respondent’s site will at some realise that it is not officially connected with the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is concerned with the intentional attracting of Internet users. Here, the disputed domain name creates a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, the website resolves to content expressly targeting the Complainant, and the Respondent profits from at least some of the traffic intended for the Complainant.

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 name <slidedl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: October 6, 2025