DECISION

 

Forma Brands, LLC v. Whois Privacy (underlying registrant, "Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann") / tianshun chen / pi te

Claim Number: FA2606002225618

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Forma Brands, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Preetha Chakrabarti of Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Whois Privacy (underlying registrant, "Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann) ("Respondent") / tianshun chen / pi te ("Respondents"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <morpne.sale>, <mroqhe.cfd>, <morpheshop.top>, <morpheuz.com>, <morphee.sale> and <morphe.vip>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2026; Forum received payment on June 5, 2026.

 

On June 7, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morpne.sale>, <mroqhe.cfd>, <morpheshop.top>, <morpheuz.com>, <morphee.sale> and <morphe.vip> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondents are bound by the Dynadot Inc registration agreement and have 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 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2026 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@morpne.sale, postmaster@mroqhe.cfd, postmaster@morpheshop.top, postmaster@morpheuz.com, postmaster@morphee.sale, postmaster@morphe.vip. Also on June 17, 2026, 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 for the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> was received and determined to be complete on July 28, 2026.

 

On July 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: Multiple Respondents

In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the entities controlling the disputed domain names are, in effect, under the common control of a single person and/or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that "a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

 

Complainant asserts that there are considerable and compelling indicia that the same individual or entity controls the disputed domain names:

 

(i) Identical WhoIs Information: All domains list the same Respondent sharing the same phone number and mailing address.

 

(ii) Same Registrar: All domains are registered through Dynadot LLC.

 

(iii) Shared Hosts: The domains use the same hosting providers when resolvable (Malakmadze or Cloudflare).

 

(iv) Shared Name Servers: The domains use the same name servers when present (Dynadot or Cloudflare).

 

(v) Similar Visual Characteristics: The domains are visually similar misspellings of MORPHE," reflecting a coordinated attempt to impersonate Forma Brands' official domain, <morphe.com>.

 

(vi) Contemporaneous Timing: The domains were created or updated around the same time (late 2025).

 

(vii) Short Registration Term: The domains are registered for only a single year.

 

(viii) Matching Verification Details: Registrar email verification reveals shared underlying information across multiple domains (e.g., <morpheshop.top> and <mroqhe.cfd> match; <morphee.sale>, <morphe.vip>, and <morpne.sale> match).

 

(ix) Same Email Provider: All domains utilize a @qq.com email address, except for <morpheuz.com> (which remains under a privacy service).

 

(x) Flagged for Deception: Consistent with Forma Brands' reports of fraud, the domains have previously been flagged as deceptive.

 

Against Complainant's assertions, Respondent for the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> contends that:

 

(i) No Relationship and Request for Severance: Respondent does not own, control, operate, represent, or have any relationship with the other five disputed domains or their listed registrants. He objects to consolidation and requests severance of <morpheuz.com>.

 

(ii) Different Registration and Acquisition Timelines: Complainant's own chronology shows that the other five disputed domains were registered in 2025, while <morpheuz.com> was created on July 3, 2011. Respondent acquired the domain from an unrelated seller through Escrow.com in May 2016 and thereafter maintained it in his personal GoDaddy and Dynadot accounts. Additionally, Respondent's separate and independently documented sleep business history is supported by evidence.

 

(iii) Internally Inconsistent Allegations: Complainant's consolidation allegations are internally inconsistent. It claims the Whois information is "the same," yet reproduces different names, addresses, telephone numbers, countries, and email addresses. It also incorrectly asserts that all domains were created or updated around late 2025, contradicting its own chronology. Furthermore, Complainant's statement that the domain "is still hidden behind a privacy service and so may be the same" is expressly speculative; possibility is not proof of common control.

 

(iv) Divergent Technical and Operational Evidence: <morpheuz.com> domain name used GoDaddy (domaincontrol.com) nameservers during the relevant periods and never hosted the copied MORPHE storefront. The copied site and consumer fraud evidence concerns the other domains. No Complaint annex identifies a common registrar account, payment source, DNS management account, host, revenue stream, person, communication, or business relationship connecting Respondent with those domains.

 

(v) Administrative Grouping by Registrar: Dynadot's June 29, 2026 expiration notice grouped three Dynadot registered domains for administrative purposes, but it did not state that they shared an account, owner, registrant, payment method, or controller. Respondent subsequently renewed only <morpheuz.com> through his personal account.

 

Upon a detailed review of the record and the websites associated with the six (6) disputed domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent's assertions regarding the domain name <morpheuz.com> are well supported by the submitted evidence, whereas Complainant's contentions of common control lack sufficient evidentiary backing with respect to this specific domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel denies Complainant's request for consolidation. Pursuant to the Panel's general powers under the UDRP Rules, the remainder of this Decision shall proceed exclusively with respect to the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> and its corresponding Respondent.

 

This determination is without prejudice to Complainant, and it remains open to Complainant to file a separate administrative proceeding (or proceedings) concerning the remaining five (5) disputed domain names.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: Identification of Respondent

The Complaint was originally filed against "Whois Privacy" for the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com>. In response to Forum's request for registrar verification, the Registrar confirmed that "Whois Privacy" is the registrant of record. The Registrar also noted that the registrant's name cannot be changed after the commencement of the UDRP proceeding, reflecting the standard domain name lock applied during a pending dispute.

 

Subsequently, "Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann" submitted a Response and communication to Forum, asserting himself to be the underlying registrant and the true beneficial owner of the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com>.

 

His assertion is based on his signed declaration under penalty of perjury confirming that: (i) "Whois Privacy" was only his self-administered privacy label; (ii) [redacted] Geary Street was his former residence from approximately 2018 to 2020; (iii) he is the owner and controller of the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> only; and (iv) he has no relationship with the other named registrants or disputed domains.

 

The Panel notes that the technical inability to update the Whois database during a pending UDRP proceeding due to the registrar's lock does not preclude the Panel from identifying the proper substantive parties to the dispute. Section 4.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 recognizes that a panel has broad discretion to determine the proper parties, and panels typically accept a self-identified underlying registrant as a proper party to ensure that the substantive merits of the case are addressed.

 

As "Whois Privacy" is merely a privacy service and "Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann" has stepped forward demonstrating actual control over the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com>, the Panel exercises its discretion under paragraphs 10(a) and 10(d) of the Rules. Despite the locked status of the Whois record, the Panel formally includes both "Whois Privacy" and the self-identified underlying registrant, "Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann," as Respondent in this administrative proceeding.

 

For the purposes of this Decision, "Whois Privacy (underlying registrant, 'Christian Hubert Jean Hoffmann')" will be collectively referred to as "Respondent" for disputed domain name <morpheuz.com>.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant was founded in 2008 in Los Angeles, California, initially as a trade show business selling makeup brushes. The brand instantly disrupted the beauty industry by making artist designed, professional quality brushes affordable and accessible. Complainant holds rights in the "MORPHE" mark, inter alia, by virtue of its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,424,302 registered October 29, 2013, in Class 21; Reg. No. 4,967,948 registered May 31, 2016, in Class 3). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates Complainant's MORPHE mark in its entirety, with the inclusion of the letters "uz." The addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") fails to distinguish the domain name from a trademark.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the disputed domain name. There is no other entity, apart from Complainant, that is known as MORPHE in connection with cosmetic products. The disputed domain name has not been authorized by Complainant in any way and is causing harm to Complainant. No active website exists at the disputed domain name to support any claim by Respondent of a legitimate interest in the domain name. Impersonating Complainant with an inactive domain is also not noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a typosquatting iteration to attract traffic to its website, which cannot establish a legitimate interest. Respondent is typosquatting and masquerading as Complainant for malicious purposes and financial gain, at the expense of consumers interested in Complainant's products.

 

iii) Respondent is using the disputed domain name to engage in typosquatting and to pass itself off as Complainant as part of a broader fraudulent scheme to solicit financial information, thereby causing harm to Complainant and its consumers for financial gain. The failure to actively use the domain name (passive holding), coupled with obvious typosquatting, further demonstrates bad faith. Panels have found that a respondent's failure to make active use of a domain name can constitute bad faith. The registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights demonstrates bad faith registration and use. Respondent appropriates Complainant's mark in its domain name to confuse Internet users into believing that some association exists between Complainant and Respondent.

 

B. Respondent

i) Respondent does not dispute that Complainant owns registered MORPHE rights sufficient for the limited first element standing test. Respondent also recognizes that the Panel may find MORPHE recognizable within MORPHEUZ for that threshold purpose. This does not establish typosquatting. MORPHEUZ is a deliberate coined spelling corresponding to MORPHEUS, documented by Respondent's simultaneous November 2015 registrations and acquisition of related domains, and sleep business records. It is not a common keyboard substitution or accidental misspelling of MORPHE.

 

ii) Respondent has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent's preparations began before acquiring the domain. In 2015, Respondent developed a mattress venture and registered related sleep domains. In May 2016, Respondent purchased the domain for $500 and cofounded Personal Mattress GmbH. Consistent activities prior to the Complaint include 2016 Google consumer surveys associating "MORPHEUZ" with sleep and mythology (not Complainant's brand), a 2018 investor presentation for a MORPHEUZ mattress, a 2019 startup profile, and the 2022 formation of SLEEP LLC. Launch delays were due to the pandemic, not to pivot toward Complainant. Acquiring a brandable domain as a long-term asset is not cybersquatting absent trademark targeting. Respondent held the disputed domain name for a decade, paid market price, never approached Complainant, and never targeted beauty consumers.

 

iii) Respondent registered the disputed domain name in good faith: There was no actual knowledge or targeting of Complainant's mark when Respondent acquired the domain in May 2016 for a German mattress venture. MORPHEUZ was chosen as a deliberate, brandable adaptation of MORPHEUS (associated with sleep). Regarding Complainant's unsupported claims of fame, Complainant provides no evidence for its claimed 2016 notoriety, revenue, and valuation. Complainant wrongly attributes the fraudulent conduct of unrelated 2025 domains to Respondent, and none of the Policy paragraph 4(b) factors apply, as Respondent never offered the domain to Complainant, operates in a completely different market (sleep versus cosmetics), and never used the domain for phishing or a copied storefront. Respondent's legitimate passive holding and continuous use of a privacy service since 2016 do not establish bad faith, particularly given his documented bona fide business plans and the presence of only standard registrar parking pages. Complainant ignored procedural notice. In July 2026, Respondent expressly notified Complainant that he had no ties to the other fraudulent domains and requested severance, but Complainant baselessly maintained its consolidated claim.

 

iv) Complainant and experienced counsel received Registrar verification identifying three different registrant records before finalizing the amended Complaint. Instead of producing an evidentiary bridge, the Complaint expressly said Respondent "may be" the same because he used privacy. It then attributed copied websites, alleged fraud, and consumer reports involving unrelated 2025 domains to a separately held domain acquired in 2016. Complainant also relied on unsupported assertions of notoriety, revenue, valuation, and subjective knowledge. Its only domain specific website evidence showed no MORPHE content or fraud. After Respondent disclosed his identity and invited removal, Complainant maintained the claim without identifying contrary evidence. On the full record, Complainant knew or should have known that evidence concerning other registrants could not prove common control, absence of legitimate interests, or bad faith acquisition by Respondent. Respondent therefore requests a finding that maintaining the Complaint constituted an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 3, 2011.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the "MORPHE" mark, inter alia, by virtue of its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,424,302 registered October 29, 2013, in Class 21; Reg. No. 4,967,948 registered May 31, 2016, in Class 3).

 

3. The disputed domain resolves to an error page.

 

4. In 2015, Respondent was developing Personal Mattress for Germany and the broader German speaking Germany, Austria, Switzerland market.

 

5. In May 2016, Respondent purchased the domain for $500 and cofounded Personal Mattress GmbH. Consistent activities prior to the Complaint include 2016 Google consumer surveys associating "MORPHEUZ" with sleep and mythology (not Complainant's brand). Respondent provides documented evidence of continuous business planning for a MORPHEUZ sleep venture between 2017 and 2022. In April 2018, Respondent created an internal investor presentation detailing MORPHEUZ as an advanced mattress system. By August 2019, Respondent drafted an AngelList startup profile for MORPHEUZ linking to the domain. In February 2022, Respondent formed SLEEP LLC as the operating entity and circulated an advisory agreement for the project. Launch delays were due to the pandemic, not to pivot toward Complainant.

 

6. In July 2026, Respondent expressly notified Complainant that he had no ties to the other fraudulent domains and requested severance, but Complainant maintained its consolidated claim.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the MORPHE mark, inter alia, by virtue of its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,424,302 registered October 29, 2013, in Class 21; Reg. No. 4,967,948 registered May 31, 2016, in Class 3). Respondent does not dispute that Complainant owns registered MORPHE rights sufficient for the limited first element standing test. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is typically considered sufficient evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MORPHE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates Complainant's MORPHE mark in its entirety, with the inclusion of the letters "uz," thereby typosquatting. The addition of a gTLD fails to play a role in distinguishing a domain name from a trademark.

 

Respondent contends that the Panel may find MORPHE recognizable within MORPHEUZ. However, the disputed domain name does not establish typosquatting. The Panel notes that the letters "uz" added to Complainant's mark refer to "Uzbekistan." The addition of such a geographical term and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the disputed domain name. There is no other entity, apart from Complainant, that is known as MORPHE in connection with cosmetic products. The disputed domain name has not been authorized by Complainant in any way and is causing harm to Complainant. No active website exists at the disputed domain name to support any claim by Respondent of a legitimate interest in the domain name. Impersonating Complainant with inactive domains is also not noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent is using the typosquatted disputed domain name to attract traffic to its website, which cannot establish a legitimate interest. Respondent is typosquatting and masquerading as Complainant for malicious purposes and financial gain, at the expense of consumers interested in Complainant's products.

 

Given the considerations above, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. As the burden of proof now shifts to Respondent, the Panel must determine if Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case and demonstrated a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent contends that in 2015, Respondent was developing Personal Mattress for Germany and the broader German speaking Germany, Austria, Switzerland market. In May 2016, Respondent purchased the domain for $500 and cofounded Personal Mattress GmbH. Consistent activities prior to the Complaint include 2016 Google consumer surveys associating MORPHEUZ with sleep and mythology (not Complainant's brand). Respondent provides documented evidence of continuous business planning for a MORPHEUZ sleep venture between 2017 and 2022. In April 2018, Respondent created an internal investor presentation detailing MORPHEUZ as an advanced mattress system. By August 2019, Respondent drafted an AngelList startup profile for MORPHEUZ linking to the domain. In February 2022, Respondent formed SLEEP LLC as the operating entity and circulated an advisory agreement for the project. Launch delays were due to the pandemic, not to pivot toward Complainant.

 

The Panel notes Complainant's contentions that Respondent had knowledge of the rights in Complainant's MORPHE mark due to the notoriety of its mark on the grounds that MORPHE LLC, the predecessor of Complainant, joined Instagram in 2008 and launched its first eyeshadow palette online to massive success, and later expanded to offer additional makeup products, opening its first retail location in Burbank, California in 2013, which quickly became "a beauty mecca." MORPHE experienced rapid growth largely credited to beauty YouTubers promoting its products, leading the brand to collaborate closely with influencers. The MORPHE brand made $400 million in revenue and reached a $2 billion valuation in 2019. Thereafter, Complainant acquired MORPHE LLC, including the MORPHE trademarks and all goodwill associated therewith. Complainant expanded MORPHE's retail distribution across the United States and abroad with MORPHE products being sold in Target and Ulta Beauty in the United States; Sephora in Canada; Superdrug in the UK and Scotland; Boots in the UK; H&M in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway; Knicks stores in Sweden; Douglas stores across the EU; and Mecca stores in Australia.

 

However, the Panel notes that Complainant has not provided any evidence supporting its allegations regarding the notoriety of the mark MORPHE. The only evidence in support of trademark notoriety in the MORPHE mark appears to be a screenshot of Complainant's own website, which states only, "Born in 2008 among the artists and influencers of Los Angeles, MORPHE instantly disrupted the beauty industry by making artist designed, professional quality brushes affordable and accessible." The website does not contain any financial figures that Complainant contends exist in support of the notoriety of its mark MORPHE.

 

Even if Complainant supplied the evidence supporting its allegations, the financial figures such as $400 million in revenue and a $2 billion valuation are as of 2019, which is long after the initial registration of the disputed domain name in 2011 and Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name in May 2016.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent was not in a position to target Complainant or Complainant's MORPHE mark at the time of the initial registration of the disputed domain name and at the time of Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name.

 

Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent was preparing for a business associated with the disputed domain name in good faith. Even though the disputed domain name currently remains inactive, the Panel finds that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent was making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, as stipulated under Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

 

Since the Panel finds that Respondent has successfully rebutted the prima facie case against it, it concludes that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel declines to analyze the other element of the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int'l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name." Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"If 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 WIPO Overview 3.1 at section 4.16, states in respect of RDNH:

 

"Panels have consistently found that the mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of RDNH..."

 

"Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that Complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements, such as Complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of Respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of Respondent bad faith (see generally section 3.8) such as registration of the disputed domain name well before Complainant acquired trademark rights, (ii) facts which demonstrate that Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs database, (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview, except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument, (iv) the provision of false evidence, or otherwise attempting to mislead the panel, (v) the provision of intentionally incomplete material evidence, often clarified by Respondent, (vi) Complainant's failure to disclose that a case is a UDRP refiling, (vii) filing the complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from Respondent without a plausible legal basis, (viii) basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence."

 

The Panel considers that, at a minimum, items (ii) and (viii) exist in the present proceeding. Specifically:

 

(i) The Complaint is brought in circumstances where the only evidence in support of trademark notoriety in the MORPHE mark appears to be a screenshot of Complainant's own website which states only "Born in 2008 among the artists and influencers of Los Angeles, MORPHE instantly disrupted the beauty industry by making artist designed, professional quality brushes affordable and accessible." The website does not contain any financial figures Complainant contends exist in support of the notoriety of its mark MORPHE.

 

(ii) Complainant is legally represented by sophisticated counsel. Notwithstanding this, Complainant clearly made false statements regarding the commonalities between the disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> and five (5) other domain names just by guessing. These are facts that Complainant could have easily verified with minimal diligence, and they further reveal that Complainant is advancing self- contradictory arguments. Namely, Complainant's own chronology shows that the other five disputed domains were registered in 2025, while <morpheuz.com> was created on July 3, 2011. Complainant's consolidation allegations are internally inconsistent. It claims the Whois information is "the same," yet reproduces different names, addresses, telephone numbers, countries, and email addresses. It also incorrectly asserts that all domains were created or updated around late 2025, contradicting its own chronology. Furthermore, Complainant's statement that the domain "is still hidden behind a privacy service and so may be the same" is expressly speculative; possibility is not proof of common control. The disputed domain name <morpheuz.com> used GoDaddy (domaincontrol.com) nameservers during the relevant periods and never hosted the copied MORPHE storefront. The copied site and consumer fraud evidence concerns the other domains. No Complaint annex identifies a common registrar account, payment source, DNS management account, host, revenue stream, person, communication, or business relationship connecting Respondent with those domains.

 

The Panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

Pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 10(e) and 15 of the Rules, it is Ordered that the Complaint concerning <morpne.sale>, <mroqhe.cfd>, <morpheshop.top>, <morphee.sale> and <morphe.vip> domain names be EXCLUDED from the present proceeding without prejudice.

 

Having not established in relation to the domain name <morpheuz.com> all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2026