DECISION

 

Skye Research, LLC v. Jasmine Molly

Claim Number: FA2508002173208

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Skye Research, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joel Rapaport, California, USA. Respondent is Jasmine Molly ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <skiepeptides.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 24, 2025; Forum received payment on August 24, 2025.

 

On August 25, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <skiepeptides.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 23, 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@skiepeptides.com. Also on September 3, 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 September 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

The entirety of the substantive portions of the Complaint reads as follows:

 

TRADEMARK/SERVICE MARK INFORMATION

Complainant owns common law trademark rights in 'Skye Peptides' through longstanding use in commerce, including operating its official site at https://skyepeptides.com. The disputed domain name is a deliberate typographical variant intended to confuse consumers.

 

FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

[a.] The domain name skiepeptides.com is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark 'Skye Peptides'. It replaces one letter, a textbook case of typosquatting.

 

[b.] Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. It is not known by the domain name, has no trademark rights, and has been impersonating Complainant to deceive consumers.

 

[c.] The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. It copies Complainant's website verbatim, has changed hosts to evade enforcement, and has been removed by two hosts. Google has delisted it. It is currently hosted on AlexHost, which advertises noncompliance with copyright law.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns common law trademark rights to its SKYE PEPTIDES mark and the <skiepeptides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it hosts a website that copies Complainant's website and claims to offer Complainant's products for sale; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as Complainant and deceives customers, for commercial gain, based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark and based on typosquatting.

 

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 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

Complainant asserts that it has rights in its SKYE PEPTIDES mark based on its use thereof and on Respondent's verbatim copying of Complainant's own <skyepeptides.com> website content. Registration of a trademark is not required when a complainant can demonstrate established common law rights in an asserted mark. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights."). To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that the mark has developed a secondary meaning with respect to the complainant and its business. This typically involves supplying evidence of extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce to show that consumers have come to associate the mark with Complainant as to the source of the goods or services. Iacocca v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 1088017 (Forum Nov. 29, 2007) However, where a respondent has so obviously and intentionally targeted an asserted mark, Panels have been prepared to find common law rights based, in part, on the concept that such rights must exist if the respondent found the mark worth exploiting. See, e.g., WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), at par. 1.3 ("the fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark may support the complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier"); Sight and Sound Ministries v. Shishir Ahmed, D2021-0737 (WIPO May 29, 2021) ("The Panel notes in this regard that within a week of the Complainant's online streaming of its production 'Jesus – Live!', the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <jesuslive2021.com>. The Panel infers that the Respondent did so in the belief that consumers would identify the Complainant as the source of origin of the disputed domain name."). Here, Complainant claims to possess common law rights in its SKYE PEPTIDES mark "through longstanding use in commerce, including operating its official site at https://skyepeptides.com." It provides screenshots of its website, showing extensive use of the mark, as well as the results of a Google search for the mark showing numerous references to Complainant. While this evidence is, itself, rather meager to support a claim of common law trademark rights, the Panel refers to the fact that Respondent has used the <skiepeptides.com> domain name to host a nearly identical copy of Complainant's own website, as discussed more fully below, and that this, viewed against the fact that the word "Skye" appears to have no descriptive or generic meaning in relation to Complainant's products, evidences Respondent's own belief that the term SKYE PEPTIDES functions as a trademark and is worthy of exploiting for commercial gain. Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Yogesh Kumar, D2022-0063 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2022) ("the Respondent's use of the PERYOURHEALTH mark to brand a cloned version of the Complainant's website itself further affirms the Complainant's position regarding its claim to unregistered trademark rights in this term, as it indicates that the Respondent is targeting the said mark, making deliberate reference to the Complainant's business as conducted via the online portal at <peryourhealth.com>"). As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has (barely) met the threshold to support a claim of common law rights in its SKYE PEPTIDES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <skiepeptides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SKYE PEPTIDES mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), altering letters in a trademark, along with adding a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See Novartis AG v. Domain Privacy LTD, UDRP-106373 (CAC May 5, 2024) ("The Panel observes that the single difference in this case is the omission of the letter 'r'. Misspellings are immaterial. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name it is sufficient to establish confusing similarity."). See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The <skiepeptides.com> domain name replaces the letter "y" in the SYKE PEPTIDES mark with the letter "i" and adds the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and so the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <skiepeptides.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's SKYE PEPTIDES mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the <skiepeptides.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "Jasmine Molly". Further, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") In addition, Complainant specifically states that Respondent "has been impersonating Complainant to deceive consumers" thus indicating a lack of consent to use its mark. Respondent has not filed a Response in this case or made any other submission to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, the Panel will consider whether Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and whether it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. As noted, Complainant asserts that the <skiepeptides.com> domain name resolves to a website that passes itself off as Complainant and deceives the public. Such activity has been held to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Subway IP LLC v. subways pvt ltd / business development, FA 2069330 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's Indian subsidiary..."). In support of its contentions Complainant asserts that Respondent "has been impersonating Complainant to deceive consumers" and that its website "copies Complainant's website verbatim". It provides screenshots of both the <skiepeptides.com> website as well as of the legitimate <skyepeptides.com> site. The Panel agrees that Respondent's site copies nearly all of the graphics and text from Complainant's own site and the bottom of Respondent's page displays the footer "© Skye Peptides 2025." The only discernable difference between the sites is Respondent's listing of a telephone number and customer contact email address, both of which are different than those used by Complainant. Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent copies its website and creates a false impression that its site is operated by Complaint and that it is deceiving potential customers. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under either Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its SKYE PEPTIDES mark. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith."). Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner."). The Complaint states that Respondent "has been impersonating Complainant to deceive consumers" and provides copies of correspondence showing that Respondent "has changed hosts to evade enforcement, and has been removed by two hosts. Google has delisted it." Also supplied is a copy of a Complaint, filed by Complainant against Google LLC; Godaddy.com, Llc; and Does 1-10 in The Superior Court Of The State Of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles seeking an order that the Defendants delist, de-index, and disable the infringing website. As noted in the previous section, Complainant has submitted screenshots from Respondent's website which copies nearly all of the text and graphics from Complainant's own website. Based on the above, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <skiepeptides.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its products and services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website."). The Panel references the submitted screenshots of the <skiepeptides.com> website which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's copying of nearly the entirety of Complainant's own <skyepeptdes.com> site. This gives the clear impression that Respondent's website originates with Complainant and is improperly seeking commercial gain based on confusion with its mark. Based on a strong preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the SKYE PEPTIDES mark and is seeking to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain. As such, the Panel finds firm ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus under ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <skiepeptides.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: September 29, 2025