Tangle Teezer Ltd v Yuriy Y Portnov

WIPO Case No. D2025-2224

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tangle Teezer Ltd v. Yuriy Y Portnov

Case No. D2025-2224

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tangle Teezer Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group

AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Yuriy Y Portnov, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tangle-teezer.shop> is registered with Beget LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 6, 2025. On June 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On July 2, 2025 the Center informed the parties in Russian and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. On July 7, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in English and Russian of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on July 31, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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 a manufacturer of hair care products, notably hairbrushes, based in the United Kingdom, and has a number of trademark registrations for TANGLE TEEZER, including International Registration No. 953741, registered on January 25, 2008 in classes 3, 21, and 25; United Kingdom Trade Mark No.

UK00904345963, registered on April 26, 2006; and European Union Trade Mark No. 004345963, also registered on April 26, 2006.

The Complainant has operated a website at “ at least since 2011 and owns the eponymous domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 23, 2025 and resolves to a parked Registrar website without content.

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 contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its TANGLE TEEZER registered trademarks. The addition of the hyphen does not distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the registered trademarks, the Complainant adds.

The Complainant further asserts that its rights in the terms TANGLE TEEZER are well established given its multiple trademarks registrations in those terms. It adds that the Respondent is not sponsored by or af f iliated with it in any way, nor has the Complainant given the Respondent permission to use the

Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in disputed domain names. The Complainant also asserts that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. Since the WhoIs information reveals the registrant to be “Yuri Y Portnov”, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. As the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, the Respondent has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of it, which, according to the Complainant evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the presence of MX records strongly implies that they could be used as part of a phishing or impersonation scheme in the future.

Since the disputed domain name was registered long after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark and its deployment of a website at “tangleteezer.com”, at a time when according to the Complainant it had a worldwide reputation, there can be no basis for any fair use finding in relation to the disputed domain name.

Further, the Complainant says that it and its TANGLE TEEZER trademark are known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark since 2007, well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on January 23, 2025. Hence, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew, or at least should have known of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks and that registration of a disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se, the Complainant contends. By 2024 the Complainant also had annual net sales of over EUR 70 million, demonstrating its global fame. The Complainant adds that performing searches by way of a number of

page 3

Internet search engines for “tangle teezer” returns multiple links referencing the Complainant and its business.

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name has active MX records, which could potentially be used for phishing purposes, and notes that previous panels have considered the presence of MX records as indicative of bad faith.

The Complainant also contends that where the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and official domain name, there is no plausible good-faith reason or logic for a Respondent to have registered it. The Complainant adds that the Respondent ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding, and that past panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may properly be considered a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

Finally, the Complainant contends that on the balance of probabilities considering all the facts referred to above, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specif ied otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

However, the Complaint was f iled in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons: the Complainant is unable to communicate in Russian and translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter; such additional delay, considering the obviously abusive nature of the disputed domain name, poses continuing risk to the Complainant and unsuspecting consumers seeking the Complainant or its products; the disputed domain name is comprised of Latin characters; the term “tangle teezer”, which is the dominant portion of the disputed domain name, does not carry any specif ic meaning in the Russian language; the Complainant previously sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, as provided in the Complaint, and the Respondent had ample time and opportunity to respond to such letter and request that communications continue in Russian. The Complainant further contends that to allow the Respondent to dictate the course of this matter and further burden the Complainant at this juncture would contravene the spirit of the Policy and disadvantage the Complainant; and finally, points out that pursuant to Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel may determine the language of the proceedings having regard to all circumstances, and to help ensure fairness, and maintain an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain disputes.

The Complainant concludes that in light of the Respondent’s decision to register a disputed domain name that misappropriates the famous TANGLE TEEZER trademark, it would unduly burden the Complainant to have to arrange and pay for translation where the Respondent has demonstrated behavior that disrupts Complainant’s business and has already required the Complainant to devote significant time and resources to addressing this instance of abuse.

The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding, did not in fact respond to the notifications in Russian from the Center concerning the proceeding, nor did it reply

page 4

to the Complainant’s cease and desist communication or more specifically to the Complainant’s request for the language of the proceeding to be English. Additionally, the disputed domain name contains the English word “tangle”, and of the word “teezer”, a neologism suggestive of the English word “teaser”.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

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.

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 Complainant’s registered trademark 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 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.

The Complainant has not authorized the use of its highly distinctive and widely known trademark by the Respondent in any way and there is nothing to indicate that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or had relevant rights in TANGLE TEEZER prior to the disputed domain name’s registration. The Respondent has made no relevant use of the disputed domain name and can thus not rely on any of its own actions to ground a claim of rights or interests.

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

page 5

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 disputed domain name resolves to an empty website. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name that contains a highly distinctive and well-established trademark in which it holds no rights and which it does not use in any legitimate or authorized manner. It has not responded to the Complaint nor to the direct communication and claim of rights of the Complainant in relation to the latter’s TANGLE TEEZER registered trademark. It is in any case dif f icult to imagine any possible good faith use, in the absence of explicit consent f rom the Complainant, of the disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive registered mark (under the generic Top-Level Domain “.shop”). In these circumstances, the Panel f inds it most likely that the Respondent knew of the

Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name and sought to take unfair advantage of such.

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 <tangle-teezer.shop> be transferred to the Complainant.

/WiIliam A. Van Caenegem/
WiIliam A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Date: August 21, 2025