Washpoppin, Inc. v jp curtis

WIPO Case No. D2025-2382

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Washpoppin, Inc. v. jp curtis

Case No. D2025-2382

1. The Parties

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

Russ August & Kabat, United States.

The Respondent is jp curtis, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cardibeauty.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2025.
On June 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18,
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 June 18, 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 the due date for Response was July 13, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any formal response but did send a series of emails to the Center as described more fully below. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 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 in the business of managing and commercializing the intellectual property rights and
brand of the rapper professionally known as Cardi B. Cardi B is an award-winning artist, with over 160 million
Instagram followers and over 19 million YouTube subscribers. The Complainant owns the trademark CARDI
B, for which it enjoys the benefits of registration, including United States Reg. No. 5624993, registered on

December 11, 2018.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2025. The

Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name without any active use.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No formal response was submitted to the Complainant’s assertions, but the Respondent sent a series of emails to the Center on June 25, July 17, and July 22, 2025, expressing frustration and distress over the proceedings. The sender emphasized being an elderly individual and claimed to have done nothing wrong,

stating that the disputed domain name was purchased legally through a domain registrar and had not been used, promoted, or offered for sale. It was asserted that the disputed domain name is passively held in an account, with no outreach or solicitation ever made regarding it. The emails portrayed the Complaint as an unjust action by the wealthy against the poor, describing it as a burdensome “money grab” that was harmful to the sender’s health. The sender urged that any complaints be directed to the domain registrar rather than to them.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. 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. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider
two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

page 3

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
CARDI B mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name incorporates the CARDI B mark in its entirety with the letters “eauty”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s CARDI B mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The CARDI B mark remains recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy.

It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to a complainant’s trademarks, to not take the extension into account. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at 1.11.1 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent is not using or making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; indeed, it appears that the domain is not in use at all; (2) the Respondent is not commonly

known or referred to by the disputed domain name, regardless of whether the Respondent has acquired
trademark or service mark rights, which it has not; and (3) the Respondent is not making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but rather registered the disputed domain name
with the specific intent to exploit Cardi B’s fame and goodwill for the Respondent’s own commercial gain, to
misleadingly divert users to its website.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent's favor. The use of a domain name for impersonation or passing off – as is

the case here given the composition of the disputed domain name, can never confer rights or legitimate
interests on a respondent. Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Great Homes, jobs-nestle.com, WIPO Case

No. D2024-2911; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, which is used in connection with the (as evidenced) well-known artist Cardi B, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

page 4

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered nearly two months prior to the filing of the Complaint but appears not to be in active use. Therefore, according to the Complainant, the circumstances indicate that the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

Further, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the legitimate owner of the CARDI B mark from reflecting the dominant portion of the mark in a corresponding domain name. While the Respondent alleges that it purchased domain names from the Registrar to hold in its account until a prospective buyer reaches out, it does not provide any evidence to support this claim, nor does it deny knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark; and even if this was true, it would not overcome the clear implication of bad faith by registering a domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known mark.

Finally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent intends for its own commercial gain to attract users and/or consumers to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion, deception, and/or mistake with the CARDI B mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, or of a

product or service the Respondent provides or intends to provide on its website.

The Panel finds that these allegations are supported by the record and are sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under 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 <cardibeauty.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: August 1, 2025