DECISION

 

Adapty Tech Inc. v. Tariq Chaudhry / Apexon

Claim Number: FA2512002192073

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Adapty Tech Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Law Group, Poland. Respondent is Tariq Chaudhry / Apexon ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <adapty.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 2, 2025; Forum received payment on December 2, 2025.

 

On December 2, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <adapty.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 December 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 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@adapty.com.

 

Also on December 4, 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 December 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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

Complainant claims rights in the ADAPTY mark established by its ownership of the registered trademarks described below and use of the mark since 2019.

 

Complainant's original platform was established at <www.adapty.io>.

 

Complainant submits that it provides a subscription revenue-management platform for mobile applications to business centers, enabling app developers and product teams to integrate, analyze, and optimize in-app purchases and subscriptions with minimal engineering overhead.

 

Complainant submits that since its launch its platform at <www.adapty.io>, has achieved significant commercial success, generating over USD 20 million in annual recurring revenue, and has attracted significant attention in the technology industry. In February 2021, TechCrunch, a leading technology media outlet, named the Complainant one of its "favorites" at the 500 Startups 27th Demo Day and subsequently covered its investment developments and new product releases, underscoring sustained recognition in the IT industry.

 

It is submitted that Complainant's website at <www.adapty.io>. delivers effective business solutions to developers, marketers, and app owners worldwide and has achieved substantial credibility within its B2B audience, as demonstrated by numerous positive reviews on g2.com.

 

The popularity of the Complainant's services has led to substantial public attention for the ADAPTY brand. Google Trends data confirms a sharp increase in searches for the term "ADAPTY" in the "Business & Industrial" category since the launch of the original website in 2019, compared to negligible searches prior to that time.

 

Currently, a Google search for "ADAPTY" displays Complainant's website as the top result, followed by major competitors who strategically target Complainant's brand through intensive SEO practices to capture traffic associated with Complainant's well-established reputation.

 

In contrast, Respondent's domain name does not appear in search results for "ADAPTY," further demonstrating that Respondent has no visibility or recognition connected to the mark.

 

Given the evident popularity and goodwill of its ADAPTY brand, Complainant took steps to protect its intellectual property by registering the ADAPTY as a service mark in the United States, and the mark was registered on 14 October 2025.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <adapty.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to the ADAPTY mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

It is submitted that the first element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) functions primarily as a standing requirement. The threshold test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned, but relatively straightforward comparison between a complainant's mark and the disputed domain name.

 

In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's trademark ADAPTY in its entirety, without any alteration, addition, or deletion of letters.

 

The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant's trademark is the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>, which is a standard registration requirement and does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark.

 

It is contended that the mere addition of the gTLD extension does not mitigate or diminish the overall similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark.

 

Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <adapty.com> for the following reasons:

 

Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). The record shows that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name solely as a remnant of the former business entity Adapty Inc., without any genuine intention to continue operating, developing, or promoting a business under its former brand name.

 

Following the Apexon Group's acquisition of Adapty Inc., all commercial activities previously undertaken under the ADAPTY brand were fully absorbed into Apexon's broader corporate structure. The ADAPTY identity ceased to exist as an independent brand. Immediately thereafter, the disputed domain name was configured to automatically redirect to <www.apexon.com>, "a website entirely unrelated to Adapty".

 

Complainant argues that such passive redirection, unsupported by any independent content, branding, service offering, or coherent commercial strategy, has consistently been held not to constitute legitimate use under the Policy.

 

Critically, Complainant submits, Respondent has never used the disputed domain name for any standalone commercial purpose related to the ADAPTY brand name. There is no website, landing page, product, service, or brand presence associated with the term. SEO analytics further demonstrate a complete absence of any legitimate activity.

 

As shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, while Complainant's website at <www.adapty.io> receives over 4,900 monthly organic visits with 1,700+ ranking keywords driven by brand recognition and search queries for "Adapty," Respondent's domain name generates zero organic traffic.

 

Complainant argues that "(t)herefore, the only possible use of the Domain name is to generate traffic of the Complainant's unconscious users, who has mistyped the Original (sic) domain name."

 

Complainant further argues that this complete absence of activity eliminates any possibility that Respondent maintained the domain name with the intention of developing legitimate commerce or offering bona fide goods or services.

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent could not possibly contend that it is commonly known by or identified with the disputed domain name. The historic holders of the domain name, Adapty Inc. and its affiliate Adapty Solutions Pvt. Ltd., ceased operating under that name following their acquisition by Apexon Group in 2021.

 

Apexon Group itself is not known by, nor does it trade under, the ADAPTY name, nor could the current unidentified registrant present any evidence of having independent rights in or association with that name.

 

WHOIS records clearly show that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name only on 8 June 2022, well after Complainant had entered the market and established substantial public recognition under its ADAPTY brand.

 

This timeline is supported by objective data. Google Trends statistics confirm that there was virtually no public interest in the ADAPTY brand prior to Complainant's commercial launch in 2019. Immediately following the launch, public visibility and brand recognition grew sharply.

 

This confirms that it was Complainant, not Respondent, who built the goodwill and market association tied to the trademark. Accordingly, Respondent cannot plausibly assert that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it holds any rights or legitimate interests in it.

 

Complainant furthermore argues that 

 

·       Apexon's own website, marketing materials, and media coverage make no reference to "ADAPTY" as an active brand, service line, or product offering; and therefore, the disputed domain name is retained purely as a residual asset with no connection to any ongoing commercial activity. No reasonable consumer could conclude that Apexon is "commonly known by" the ADAPTY brand;

 

·       Respondent has not engaged in any bona fide non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but on the contrary, Respondent is actively exploiting the disputed domain name for illegitimate commercial gain; and by using the disputed domain name to redirect traffic to Apexon's website, Respondent is leveraging Complainant's established trademark to attract Internet users and potential clients to Apexon's services;

 

·       such use of the disputed domain name is not passive holding by an unrelated third party, but rather active exploitation of Complainant's brand by its competitor Apexon; and

 

·       such use of the disputed domain name constitutes a clear commercial use designed to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill associated with Complainant's mark. Such use inherently creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers and cannot, under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy, be considered legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's deliberate refusal to engage with Complainant's attempts in good faith to negotiate a purchase or otherwise resolve this matter, combined with explicit instructions preventing further contact, demonstrates an intentional effort to obstruct Complainant and maintain control over the disputed domain name for improper purposes.

 

Thus, by no means can Respondent's use of the ADAPTY brand be considered legitimate or bona fide. The Panel should, therefore, find Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied because Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

 

Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was originally registered on April 19, 2011 by an unrelated party. However, WHOIS records confirm that Respondent acquired the domain name much later, on 8 June 2022, well after Complainant had launched its business in 2019 and achieved substantial market recognition.

 

By mid-2022, Complainant had already gained significant visibility through media coverage, Google search trends, and competitive SEO targeting by major industry players.

 

Given that both Complainant and Respondent operate in the technology sector, Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of Complainant's brand at the time of acquisition on 8 June 2022. The timing of the transfer strongly indicates that Respondent acted with knowledge of Complainant's rights and reputation.

 

By acquiring the disputed domain name after Complainant had established its trademark and market presence, Respondent effectively prevented Complainant from securing a domain name corresponding to its trademark. This conduct aligns with the bad-faith circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), namely, registering or acquiring a domain name to block a rights holder from registering its mark in a corresponding domain.

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to automatically redirect to the website <www.apexon.com>, the official website of Apexon Group. This redirection creates a likelihood of confusion among Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the disputed domain name. Users searching for Complainant's services may mistakenly arrive at Respondent's website, generating commercial or strategic benefit for Apexon Group while undermining Complainant's online identity.

 

By maintaining control over the disputed domain name which is an exact-match corresponding to Complainant's trademark, Respondent captures type-in traffic, misdirected referrals, and search engine queries from users seeking Complainant's services.

 

This diverted traffic provides Apexon with direct exposure to potential customers who intended to reach Complainant and positions Apexon to intercept business opportunities meant for Complainant. These benefits constitute commercial gain "by attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users" through confusion with Complainant's trademark, satisfying the bad-faith criteria under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent has actively obstructed Complainant's good-faith attempts to negotiate a purchase or otherwise resolve the matter. Despite multiple outreach efforts by Complainant in 2023, 2024, and 2025, Respondent either failed to respond or issued brief statements instructing Complainant not to make further contact, implying that the matter was not of interest.

 

Complainant concludes in summary arguing that Respondent's acquisition and use of the disputed domain name occurred after Complainant had established substantial recognition and trademark rights; and Respondent's behavior—acquiring the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights, redirecting traffic for commercial benefit, refusing to negotiate, and preventing Complainant from securing a corresponding domain name, demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a subscription revenue-management platform for mobile apps and provides its services using the ADAPTY service mark:

·       United States registered service mark ADAPTY, registration number 7,987,192, filed on April 2, 2024, registered on the Principal Register on for services in international class 42, claiming first use in commerce on March 24, 2020;

·       United States registered service mark ADAPTY and design, registration number 7,987,193, filed on April 2, 2024,registered on the Principal Register on October 14, 2025 for services in international class 42, claiming first use in commerce on March 24, 2020.

 

The disputed domain name <adapty.com> was registered on April 19, 2011, and the record shows that it appears to have been updated without a name change on September 8, 2017.

 

Subsequently the registration details changed as described below.

 

The disputed domain name automatically redirects to Respondent's website at <www.apexon.com>.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the ADAPTY mark established by its ownership of the service mark registrations described below and its use of the mark in its business providing a subscription revenue-management platform for mobile apps.

 

The measure of Complainant's goodwill and reputation is reflected in its annual revenue generating over USD 20 million in annual recurring revenue and has attracted significant attention in the technology industry.

 

The disputed domain name is composed of the ADAPTY mark and the gTLD extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that, as in the present case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Furthermore, in the circumstances of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

The Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Registration History of the Disputed Domain Name

In advance of considering whether Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel notes that the identity of the Respondent is a central issue in this proceeding.

 

The evidence shows that the disputed domain name <adapty.com> was registered on April 19, 2011, and it appears to have been updated without a name change on September 8, 2017. The ownership from 2011 to 2017 is not relevant to the arguments in this proceeding.

 

Subsequently the registration details were changed on a number of occasions: 

·       on April 9, 2018, the registrant availed of privacy protection;

·       on August 16, 2019, it was registered in the name "Adapty Inc.";

·       on February 25, 2020, it was registered in the name: "Adapty Solutions Pvt Ltd";

·       on June 8, 2022, the registrant availed of privacy protection; and

·       on June 21, 2023, the registrant was Respondent who availed of privacy protection.

 

In the Complainant, Complainant explains that in 2019, ownership then transferred to Adapty Inc., and subsequently to its affiliated entity, Adapty Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in 2020. In May 2021, Adapty Inc. and its related corporation was taken over by a new group engaged in the technology industry: APEXON.

 

Complainant's core argument is that when the disputed domain name changed hands on June 21, 2023, it was acquired by Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Identities of the Registrants of the Disputed Domain Name

Complainant has adduced in evidence a copy of a press release issued on May 6, 2021, by APEXON, which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The press release states as follows showing that APEXON had acquired rights in the ADAPTY mark in May 2021by means of an acquisition of an enterprise named ADAPTY:

 

"Expanding its strength in digital commerce and customer experience with Adapty' s 200+ digital experts

 

Princeton, NJ, Southfield, Michigan and Chennai, India - May 06, 2021 - Apexon, a leading digital solutions provider, today announced the acquisition of US-headquartered Adapty. The company brings a strong competency in digital commerce and customer experience (CX) capabilities, powered by a team of over 200 digital experts."

 

As Complainant has adduced and relies upon this evidence it must accept that on May 6, 2021, APEXON. was "a leading digital solutions provider" and the take-over target enterprise Adapty Inc. had "a strong competency in digital commerce and customer experience (CX) capabilities, powered by a team of over 200 digital experts."

 

It follows that the target Adapty Inc. had an established goodwill in the ADAPTY mark, with 200 digital experts, on May 6, 2021.

 

It also follows that APEXON, was sufficiently established on that date to purchase the target Adapty Inc.

 

There are no specific details of the corporate structure or status of either APEXON or the target Adapty Inc. in the Complaint, but the inference, supported by the press release, is that APEXON was a larger corporation or group which bought Adapty Inc. and its related Indian enterprise to expand the scope of its business.

 

On the balance of probabilities, the evidence shows that in 2021, when Complainant was a mere start-up, the Adapty Inc. was an attractive target for a take-over by APEXON.

 

Apexon's Rights in the ADAPTY mark

The chain of email correspondence exhibited by Complainant in an annex to the Complaint shows that Complainant has been trying to buy the ADAPTY mark from APEXON since April 6, 2023.

 

Complainant submits that APEXON has essentially abandoned use of the ADAPTY mark, and is merely using the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's principal website at <www.apexon.com>; that the url <www.apexon.com> does not attract any traffic. It is effectively parked.

 

Complainant has exhibited a chain of email correspondence detailing its efforts to purchase the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant's messages were sent by a person whose name has been redacted to the initials V.D. below. Each of the messages were sent to employees of APEXON with email addresses <@apexon.com>.

 

·       On April 6, 2023, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "I'm (V.) a co-founder of Adapty.io. I've seen on your Twitter that Apexon acquired Adapty.com; congrats! I'm wondering if you're open to selling adapty.com domain. Would you be interested in discussing this?"

·       On April 10, 2023, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "Following up on the conversation above, the domain would be in good hands…Would you mind discussing it, or maybe you can point me to the right employee of Apexon?"

·       April 10, 2023, SC<@APEXON.COM> to V.D. <@adapty.io>: "Thanks for your interest in purchasing adapty.com domain. We are still in the process of integrating the company and have both name and brand assets that we will continue to leverage in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it may be early for us to consider a sale of this domain – that may change 12 to 18 months from now."

·       On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "Thank you for your response! While I understand it may be early, I have some points that may convince you. I believe that the domain adapty.com may not hold significant value for Apexon due to the following reasons:….[reasons given in the email message]… I would be delighted to schedule a short call to introduce myself and provide more information about our business."

·       On April 14 2023 JG <@apexon.com> responded to VD <@adapty.io>: "We are evaluating your proposal and will get back to you soon. Thanks in advance for your patience."

·       In response, on April 14, 2023, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to JG <@apexon.com> acknowledging receipt of the email.

·       On April 20, 2023 at 4:17 AM V.D <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "I want to get in touch here to see if my last message made any sense to you. Let me know please if you're available."

·       On September 29, 2023, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "I just want to loop back about acquiring the adapty.com domain. We're doing good; I'm now in the US in the Bay Area (I'm here for one more week), so if you're around, I'm happy to meet in person, or I can travel anywhere in the US. Please let me know if you change your mind and are open to discussing the domain…"

·       On January 24, 2024 VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>:"I'd like to loop here about a potential domain selling of Adapty.com. maybe you're open to discussing it? Appreciate your time,"

·       On July 3, 2024, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SS <@apexon.com>: "Just looping one more time about Adapty.com domain :)".

·       On July 8, 2024 VD <@adapty.io> wrote to JG <@apexon.com> "I want to get back to discussing adapty.com domain acquisition, let's discuss it?"

·       On August 12, 2024 VD <@adapty.io> wrote to SC <@apexon.com> "Just looping one more time about Adapty.com domain :)"

·       On November 5, 2024 V.D <@adapty.io> wrote to SC <@apexon.com> "(We)… want to try to return to buying domain one more time. Would you be interested discussing it?"

·       On October 19, 2025 VD <@adapty.io> wrote to <info@apexon.com>, <legal@apexon.com>: "…We noticed that the adapty.com domain is currently registered under Apexon but doesn't appear to be in active use. We'd like to explore the possibility of acquiring it for our business, as it directly corresponds to our brand and registered U.S. trademark "Adapty." (Reg. Nos. 7,987,192 and 7,987,193). Please let me know who would be the right person to discuss this with or how we can move forward. Thanks!"

·       On Oct 25, 2025 VD <@adapty.io> wrote to <info@apexon.com>, <legal@apexon.com>: "I'm following up on my message from last week regarding the adapty.com domain. I'm … CEO of Adapty Tech Inc., the company operating Adapty.io. We hold registered U.S. trademarks for ADAPTY (Reg. Nos. 7,987,192 and 7,987,193). The domain adapty.com is identical to our mark and does not appear to be in active use. We would like to discuss acquiring the domain and are prepared to complete the transfer quickly. If Apexon has no commercial use for this domain, a straightforward transaction would be the most efficient way to resolve ownership. If we don't hear back, we may need to initiate a UDRP proceeding to recover the domain based on our trademark rights. However, our strong preference is to handle this amicably and directly. Please let me know who is the right contact for this matter."

·       On November 5, 2025, VD <@adapty.io> wrote to <info@apexon.com>, <legal@apexon.com>: "Dear Apexon team, It's the last email to negotiate adapty.com domain, if you don't reply we'll file UDRP."

 

The above email correspondence from Complainant acknowledges that APEXON had acquired the disputed domain name as part of the acquisition of target APEXON. As such there is no question that APEXON had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name when the acquisition took place.

 

Identities of the Respondents

Respondent's argument is that Respondent newly acquired the disputed domain name on June 21, 2023, subsequent to the registration of Complainant's service marks. It infers that Respondent is not the APEXON which purchased the disputed domain name on May 6, 2021.

 

But, Complainant's own case is that the current WhoIs information as disclosed by the Registrar, provides inter alia the following data:

·       Tariq Chaudhry is the registrant name, administrative name, billing name: and

·       APEXON is the registrant organization, administrative organization; billing organization.

 

Complainant's own evidence is that

·       the ADAPTY mark had been in use prior to the take-over of the target ADAPTY Inc.; and it may therefore be inferred that it had a substantial goodwill and reputation with 200+experts employed;

·       in the email correspondence with APEXON Complainant did not challenge APEXON's rights to the ADAPTY mark until 2025;

·       the disputed domain name resolves to a website that redirects to the website at <www.apexon.com>;

·       all Complainant's abovementioned email messages to APEXON offering to purchase the disputed domain name from 2023 to November 5, 2025, are addressed to employees using <@apexon.com> as their email address.

 

Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that Respondent APEXON is not the same entity as

·       the APEXON which acquired the disputed domain name by acquisition of the business called ADAPTY, as announced in its press release on May 6, 2021;

·       the APEXON with which it attempted to engage in email correspondence over a two-year period from March 2023 until the present Complaint was issued.

 

In contrast Complainant has shown that Respondent APEXON acquired rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by means of an acquisition and is continuing to use the disputed domain name to resolve to its primary website at <www.apexon.com>.

 

The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities therefore that Respondent is the same entity or group which lawfully acquired the disputed domain name on June 21, 2023, and continues to own and use it to resolve to Respondent's own website.

 

Burden of Production

The fundamental principle applied in decisions under the Policy, is that a complainant bears the burden of production for all three elements in Policy ¶ 4(a); and that burden shifts to the respondent in Policy ¶4(a)(ii), when the complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Having considered the evidence adduced the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Therefore, the burden of production does not shift to Respondent. The Policy does not oblige Respondent to file a Response.

 

Having failed to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, Complainant has therefore failed to prove the second element of the test in Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Bad Faith

As Complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is not necessary for the Panel to consider the issues raised in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

However Rules ¶15(e) places a duty on the Panel to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in certain circumstance. The Rule provides that "(i)f after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

The evidence shows that Complainant was trying to engage with Respondent for over two years to purchase the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant did not file an application to register ADAPTY as a service mark until February 4, 2024, when it became apparent that Respondent was not engaging in correspondence about the sale of the disputed domain name.

 

The registration details of the disputed domain name to which Complainant takes exception changed on June 21, 2023, when Respondent availed of privacy protection service to conceal its identity.

However, at that time Complainant continued to engage in correspondence with Respondent as set out above and was very eager to purchase the disputed domain name.

 

Specifically, on April 10, 2023, in a replying email SC<@APEXON.COM> advised V.D. <@adapty.io> that Respondent was not interested in selling the disputed domain name at that time: "Thanks for your interest in purchasing adapty.com domain. We are still in the process of integrating the company and have both name and brand assets that we will continue to leverage in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it may be early for us to consider a sale of this domain – that may change 12 to 18 months from now."

 

There are therefore strong indications that when Complainant's attempts at negotiation to purchase the disputed domain name were rejected and subsequently ignored, Complainant embarked on a plan to secure the disputed domain name by Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Complainant filed its applications to register ADAPTY as a service mark on April 2, 2024, when Respondent had ceased responding to its communications.

Rather than bring a Complaint based on its claimed common law rights, it waited until the service marks were registered on October 14, 2025 and brought this Complaint. It is clear from the exhibited, abovementioned email correspondence, that Complainant was aware that Respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, acquired by acquisition of the enterprise described herein as the target ADAPTY.

 

However, as noted, since June 21, 2023, Respondent has availed of a privacy service to conceal its identity on the published WhoIs.  Therefore, Complainant could not have been sure who owned the disputed domain name registration until the registration details were disclosed by the Registrar at the request of for the purposes of administering this Complaint. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Panel to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <adapty.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

__________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: January 2, 2026