The Complainant Casetagram Limited, trading as CASETIFY, a Hong Kong-based company founded in 2011 that designs and sells technology accessories, including phone cases and watch bands. The Complainant claims to operate internationally, with offices in Los Angeles, Seoul, and Tokyo, and to have protected over 20 million devices worldwide and maintained an active online presence through its primary domain name <casetify.com>, registered since November 22, 2013, which received approximately 6.6 million visits in December 2025.<\/p>\n
The Complainant, owner of the “CASETIFY” trademarks, alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <caasetify.com> in a manner that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, without any rights and legitimate interest and in bad faith.<\/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 relies on the above-mentioned registered trademarks for the word mark CASETIFY with the first use in commerce dating to 2011. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and has not been granted any license or authorization to use the CASETIFY trademark. The Respondent has previously been a party to the following UDRP proceedings resulting in adverse decisions: WIPO Cases No. D2025-3675; D2025-3387; D2025-2680; and D2025-0806.<\/p>\n
Although the Complainant occasionally refers to the disputed domain names in the plural, only one domain name, <caasetify.com>, is the subject of this proceeding.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CASETIFY trademark, with the applicable TLD disregarded in accordance with established UDRP practice. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant's mark by a single letter – a repetition of the vowel \"a\". The Complainant characterizes the registration as deliberate typosquatting and relies on Section 1.9 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, which provides that intentional misspellings of a trademark are confusingly similar for the purposes of the first UDRP element.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, has received no authorization to use the CASETIFY mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name (WIPO Cases No. D2008-0642 and D2004-1049). The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host parked pages featuring pay-per-click links to third-party websites competing directly with the Complainant's business, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraphs 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 2.9). The Respondent's use of a privacy WHOIS service further supports the absence of legitimate interests (WIPO Case No. D2011-1855).<\/p>\n
The Complainant advances several cumulative grounds of bad faith. First, given the international reputation of the CASETIFY mark and the Complainant's substantial online presence, the Respondent knew or should have known of the trademark at the time of registration (WIPO Case No. D2005-0517). Second, typosquatting per se evidences bad faith, and the mere registration of a typosquatted version of a well-known mark by an unaffiliated party creates a presumption of bad faith under Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 (WIPO Case No. D2004-1069). Third, the Respondent's use of competitive PPC links to generate commercial revenue through domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.5; D2006-0162). Respondent's history of adverse UDRP decisions and its registration of domain names misappropriating third-party trademarks (WIPO Cases No. D2004-1028; D2016-2020; D2013-1404) constitutes a pattern of cybersquatting. Fifth, the Respondent's use of a privacy WHOIS service is indicative of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2003-0230; WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.6). The Complainant concludes that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with full knowledge of and with intent to target the Complainant's trademark (WIPO Case No. D2014-1754), and that no plausible good faith use of the disputed domain name is conceivable (WIPO Cases No. D2000-0003; D2000-0574).<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "