UDRP a reminder of Google’s risky domain names

The domain name was involved in a UDRP; dot .zip is one of two risky gTLDs assigned to Google’s Registry. Along with .mov domains pose the risk of being used in phishing campaigns, as they are associated with .zip and .mov files respectively.

In the case of, the domain is already blacklisted by antivirus software. It’s a brazen attempt at cybersquatting on a famous brand and creating malware campaigns, potentially. Its registrant listed it for sale on

Final decision: Transfer the domain to the Complainant, PayPal, Inc.

PayPal, Inc. v. Super Wong

Claim Number: FA2305002046353


Complainant is PayPal, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Karen A. Webb of Fenwick & West LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Super Wong (“Respondent”), China.


The domain name at issue is (“Domain Name”), registered with 101domain GRS Limited.


The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.


Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 26, 2023; Forum received payment on May 26, 2023.

On May 31, 2023, 101domain GRS Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the domain name is registered with 101domain GRS Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 101domain GRS Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the 101domain GRS Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On June 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 22, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to Also on June 2, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 5, 2023.

On June 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.


Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.


A. Complainant

Complainant operates an online payment service. Complainant has rights in the PAYPAL mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark worldwide, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2646490, registered on November 5, 2002). Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYPAL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the “.zip” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”).

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the PAYPAL mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Domain Name redirects users to a third-party auction website that offers the Domain Name for sale.

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name to offer it for sale. Further, Respondent has a pattern of registering multiple infringing domain names. Finally, Respondent’s opportunistic bad faith is evidenced by Respondent using the Domain Name that contains the entirety of Complainant’s well-known mark.

B. Respondent

Respondent denies that it had any ill intent in registering the Domain Name, apologizes for its conduct and indicates that it consents to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.


Respondent consents to transfer the domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, 101domain GRS Limited placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the Domain Name while this proceeding is still pending.

In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).


As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: June 6, 2023

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved.