DECISION

 

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Domain Admin

Claim Number: FA2506002159607

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Annie S. Wang-Poloskov of Wang Law Corporation, United States. Respondent is Domain Admin ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <disneyadventure.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 6, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025.

 

On June 10, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <disneyadventure.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@disneyadventure.com. Also on June 16, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, a worldwide producer of entertainment goods and services. In 2023 it was announced that Complainant's newest cruise ship, to set sail in late 2025, would be named the Disney Adventure. Complainant and its affiliated companies own hundreds of trademark registrations for DISNEY and DISNEY-formative marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, and asserts that the DISNEY mark has become famous as a result of worldwide use and promotion. Complainant owns registrations for DISNEY ADVENTURE in jurisdictions that include Singapore (issued in 2023), China (issued on July 5, 2024), and Hong Kong (issued on July 9, 2024).

 

The disputed domain name <disneyadventure.com> was registered on July 10, 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name redirects to a page that offers the domain name for sale for $2,850. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <disneyadventure.com> is confusingly similar to its DISNEY and DISNEY ADVENTURES marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks 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 domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the 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 domain name; and

(3)       the 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <disneyadventure.com> incorporates Complainant's registered DISNEY and DISNEY ADVENTURE marks, adding "adventure" to the former and omitting the space from the latter, and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. zuhal topuz, FA 2008843 (Forum Sept. 21, 2022) (finding <disneylorcana.com> confusingly similar to DISNEY); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Bob Stapp, FA 1829574 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019) (finding <waltdisneyco.com> confusingly similar to WALT DISNEY); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Gu Bei, FA 1284140 (Forum Oct. 31, 2009) (finding <disneycaliforniaadventure.com> confusingly similar to DISNEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered marks without authorization. The only apparent use to which the domain name has been put is to redirect Internet users to a web page at which the domain name is offered for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. zuhal topuz, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered marks, including its famous DISNEY mark, and has used it for the sole purpose of advertising it for sale. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. zuhal topuz, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2025