Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. filed a UDRP to recover PlayboyStory.com, a domain it once owned but allowed to lapse in 2022. The new registrant, identifying as “Crack Misoft” of California, used the domain for a site posing as “Playboy Inc.” and offering access to “every issue ever made”, effectively hosting or linking to unauthorized digital copies of 72 years of Playboy magazine.
The Panel found the domain confusingly similar to the famous PLAYBOY trademark, registered since 1954, and held that the Respondent had no legitimate interest in reproducing or distributing copyrighted material under that name. The site’s imitation of official branding and its portrayal as an authorized source made clear it was trading on Playboy’s goodwill.
With no response filed, the Panel concluded the registration and use were in bad faith, designed to divert traffic and exploit the brand’s reputation through infringement and deception.
Final decision: Complaint granted; PlayboyStory.com ordered to be transferred to Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Crack Misoft
Claim Number: FA2509002176805
PARTIES
Complainant is Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Janet J. Lee of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Crack Misoft (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is playboystory.com registered with eNom, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 13, 2025; Forum received payment on September 13, 2025.
On September 15, 2025, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the playboystory.com disputed domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, LLC 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 September 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 2025 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 postmaster@playboystory.com. Also on September 16, 2025, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complaint is a long-established international entertainment, lifestyle, and multimedia licensing company incorporated in Delaware, USA. Complainant is best known as the publisher of Playboy Magazine, one of the world’s best-selling lifestyle magazines featuring the PLAYBOY trademark and the iconic Rabbit Head logo.
Complainant owns several registered trademarks in the United States through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), for example: PLAYBOY, United States Registration No. 600,018, registered on December 28, 1954, in International Class 16. Complainant also owns registered trademarks in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. The foregoing trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “PLAYBOY Mark”. Through substantial investment of time, effort, and resources, the PLAYBOY Mark has become an extremely well-known and recognized trademark. Complainant has developed a strong reputation for the high quality of goods, services, and media associated with its registered trademarks.
Complainant owns the domain name playboy.com, which resolves to its official website at “www.playboy.com”.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2022 and resolves to a website that promotes and publishes magazines that compete with or are purportedly authorized by Complainant and trade off of Complainant’s PLAYBOY Mark. Further, Respondent’s website purports to be “Playboy Inc.” allegedly selling or offering to sell Complainant’s magazine, purportedly providing “every issue ever made.”
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the PLAYBOY Mark as described above. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLAYBOY Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PLAYBOY Mark as set forth below.
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 names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PLAYBOY Mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., PLAYBOY, United States Registration No. 600,018, registered on December 28, 1954, in International Class 16). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
The disputed domain name consists of the PLAYBOY Mark in its entirety followed by the term “story”, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Registration of a domain name that adds a term or terms to the entirety of a trademark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains a complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive term and generic Top-Level Domain). Moreover, where the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of a term or terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (“where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”).
Finally, adding a gTLD, a technical requirement of a domain name, to a complainant’s mark, also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as “.com”, is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has not provided evidence nor proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the PLAYBOY Mark. Moreover, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement from or association with Complainant.
Further, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant’s, resolving to a competing website that displays the PLAYBOY Mark and logo. Respondent uses the PLAYBOY Mark, leading Internet users to believe that they have arrived at Complainant’s site. Such registration of a domain name for the purpose of diverting online traffic premised on consumer confusion is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(i).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as set forth below.
First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name in this manner supports a finding of bad faith.
Second, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its PLAYBOY Mark when registering the disputed domain name. It strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its PLAYBOY Mark when registering the disputed domain name, especially since the disputed domain name contains the PLAYBOY Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “story”, and then followed by the gTLD “.com”. Knowledge of a complainant’s trademark prior to registering a disputed domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Third, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).
In sum, the Panel concludes that the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website in which Respondent attempts to pass off as and compete with Complainant, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, support an inference of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the playboystory.com disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2025
