DECISION

 

Yahoo Inc. v. Freeform / daniel read

Claim Number: FA2609002245294

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Yahoo Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Neema Mohammadizad of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Freeform / daniel read ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <yah000.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 14, 2026; Forum received payment on September 14, 2026.

 

On September 15, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <yah000.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 September 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@yah000.com. Also on September 16, 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.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to Forum, see below.

 

On October 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that its products and services include online publications and livestreams featuring information and news on business, technology, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, and related fields, online shopping, online advertising and marketing, web directory and search services, sports, sports betting, games, e-mail, technical support, business management, movie reviews, news, weather, audio and video streaming, and more. Complainant owns the website located at the domain name <yahoo.com>. In continuous use since 1994, Complainant's YAHOO! mark has become one of the most recognized brands in the world. Indeed, in 2013 and 2014, Complainant was ranked as one of the top 100 global brands in BRANDZ Top 100 Most Valuable Brands report issued by Millward Brown. In 2014, 2018, and 2019, Complainant was ranked as one of the Top 100 Most Powerful Brands by Tenet Partners. In December 2024, Complainant ranked number 2 in Comscore's Top 50 Multi-Platform Properties (Desktop and Mobile). Complainant asserts rights in the mark YAHOO! through its registration in the United States in 1988. The mark is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its YAHOO! mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark, omitting the exclamation point and replacing the letters "oo" with the visually similar digits "000", merely adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website impersonates Complainant and Complainant's Yahoo Scout platform. Complainant's genuine Yahoo Scout platform is an "AI-powered answer engine" that delivers answers with context and trusted sources and links directly to Complainant's Yahoo, Mail, News, Finance, and Sports services. The resolving website closely imitates key visual and functional elements of Complainant's platform.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as the resolving website impersonates Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Respondent engaged in typosquatting.

 

B. Respondent

In its mail to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: "This site has been taken down from this domain and is now dormant. It was related to a project being done for Yahoo being carried out by Freeform Ltd, and housed a simple prototype not a functional website which is now removed. Let me know if this concludes the matter or any other follow up required."

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

The Panel interprets Respondent's email to Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <yah000.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 7, 2026