ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION M and M Direct Limited v. Reggie Gallardo Case No. D2025-2875 1. The Parties Complainant is M and M Direct Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Konexo, Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Reggie Gallardo, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Not known, Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 30, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 4, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 25, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 26, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is an online retailer of discounted branded clothing, footwear, and headgear delivering products to over 30 countries. Complainant’s website at “www.mandmdirect.com” receives over 21 million visitors every year. Complainant first started to use the name M AND M in 1987, named after its founders Mark Ellis and Martin Churchward. By 2018, Complainant had more than two million active customers. On September 21, 2021, Complainant acquired the domain name which redirects to Complainant’s website. Since June 2023, Complainant’s website was branded M AND M and prominently features the M AND M logo. Complainant owns trademark registrations for M AND M, including the United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00904631677, M AND M (figurative), filed on October 4, 2005 and registered on January 19, 2007 for goods and services in international classes 25, 28 and 35 and the European Union trademark registration No. 006679534, M AND M (word), filed on February 19, 2008 and registered on January 22, 2009 for goods and services in international classes 25, 28 and 35. The disputed domain name was registered on May 29, 2025, and resolves to a website (the “Website”) which features the name “M AND M” and states that the website is “Launching Soon”. Internet users are asked to provide contact details namely their name and email address. At the bottom of the page appears a copyright notice “Copyright © 2025 M and M - All Rights Reserved”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the hyphens between each element of Complainant’s mark, namely “M-AND-M”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record giving rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of Respondent within the meaning of paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Last, the disputed domain name entirely incorporates Complainant’s trademark with the addition of hyphens which merely replicate the spaces found in the trademark that cannot appear in domain names, thereby
page 4 heightening confusion rather than creating any distinction. Accordingly, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes a) the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, b) the fact that Complainant’s trademark M AND M derives from the initial letters of the first names of Complainant predecessors’ founders, c) the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the trademark of Complainant entirely with the addition of hyphens which merely replicate the spaces found in the trademark that cannot appear in domain names, and d) the fact that the Website prominently displays Complainant’s trademark and includes a copyright notice “Copyright © 2025 M and M - All Rights Reserved” which misleads Internet users into believing that the coming soon website will be that of Complainant, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: September 11, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy