The Complainant is a global FinTech company established in 2017. It offers global money transfer services, currently serves over 10 million customers and operates in over 170 countries. The Complainant is the owner of the domain names <paysend.com> and <paysend.me>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 2025. The Whois record does not disclose the registrant’s identity or contact details. At the time of this decision, the website under the disputed domain name is inactive. However, on the date of filing of this Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage displaying the Complainant's purple \"P\" logo and claiming to conduct \"verification procedure\" and once \"verification\" is done, it resolved to a page with a statement: \"Your personalised link has already expired. Please contact the person who sent you this link to get a new one\".<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules has been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n (1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PAYSEND trademarks. The Complainant’s PAYSEND mark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name, together with the additional term “transfers”, which is descriptive of the Complainant’s business, products, and services. The addition of the term “transfers” and a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the PAYSEND mark remains the main and dominant element of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the applicable domain suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing the first element under the Policy, and the “.com” generic top-level domain does not affect the confusing similarity analysis.<\/p>\n (2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making a bona fide or non-commercial use. Instead, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that impersonates the Complainant and pretends to be the Complainant.<\/p>\n (3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s well-known PAYSEND trademark is fully incorporated in the disputed domain name, together with a term descriptive of the Complainant’s business and services (“transfers”). The disputed domain name was registered many years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks, at a time when the Complainant’s trademarks and business had already gained recognition and the trademarks were extensively used. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without keeping the Complainant and its “PAYSEND” trademark in mind. The content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves clearly demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, as well as the Respondent’s intent to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s marks. The content is related to the Complainant’s business and constitutes direct evidence of impersonation, as the disputed domain name is used for impersonation of the Complainant and possible fraud. Furthermore, the absence of any contact details on the website reinforces the conclusion that the Respondent acted in bad faith. This demonstrates both bad faith registration and bad faith use.<\/p>\n The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Ganna Prokhorova"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-20 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns a number of trademarks around world, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n - International trademark registration no. 1251936 “PaySend”, registered as of April 10, 2015, in Class 36.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant owns trademark registrations in the Russian Federation, where the Respondent is located, including:<\/p>\n - Russian trademark registration no. 573364 “PaySend”, registered as of March 31, 2015, in Class 36;
- Russian trademark registration no. 601343 “PAYSEND” (stylized script), registered as of September 11, 2015, in Classes 9 and 36.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"paysend-transfers.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}