The Complainant WeVerse INC is a global digital platform that facilitates direct communication and engagement between artists and their fans worldwide. The platform functions as an integrated ecosystem where artists can share exclusive content, publish official announcements, host live broadcasts (Weverse Live), and interact directly with their communities through posts, comments, and direct messaging features available via paid memberships. In addition to community interaction, the Complainant’s platform incorporates e-commerce services through Weverse Shop, enabling the sale of official merchandise, albums (including Weverse Albums), and fan club memberships. The platform also provides multilingual support with automatic translation features, making content accessible to a global audience.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds trademark registrations including “weverse” phrase going back to 2022.<\/p>\n
On December 3, 2025; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <weverse.vip>. The disputed domain name is inactive at the time of the decision.<\/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": "
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark “WEVERSE”, as it reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it is argued that the top-level domain “.vip” is added only for technical reasons and it should be disregarded, referring to earlier panel decisions such as CAC UDRP decision on the case Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Pi Te, (CAC-UDRP-108225) where it was stated that “it is well established that generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), here “.vip” may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which a complainant has rights”, as well as the CAC UDPR decision on the case Compagnie Générale des Établissments Michelin v. Jack her, (CAC-UDRP-108097) in the same regard.<\/p>\n
In view of the above, it was claimed that \"WEVERSE\" is the solely term within the disputed domain name <weverse.vip> that which must be taken into account when comparing it with Weverse’s previous rights.<\/p>\n
Given the above, it has been argued that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks “WEVERSE”.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain names as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark or domain name with “WEVERSE”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also claims that its trademark is well-known and the awareness of the trademark among the public is considerable.<\/p>\n
Additionally, in this regard, it was stated that several notices of take down have been sent to the Registrant email address, Registrar and the Internet Services Provider and no response was received from none of them, and regular monitoring of the disputed domain name and its website content revealed that until the filing of the Complaint, the domain name continued using the Complainant’s trademarks not only on the domain name at-issue but also in its content itself.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its well-known trademark WEVERSE. Thus, it is stated that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant referred to the previous panel decisions in support of this argument.<\/p>\n Although the Respondent would have no relationship with the Complainant’s trademarks, the disputed domain name is claimed to be emulating to be a website related to the Complainant under the impression that this may be some kind of official and\/or officially linked website that provides a “VIP” or exclusive experience, when it is not the case. The Complainant states that the official website belonging to Complainant does not require a username and password to access its content. However, the infringing domain name does require this information, which may lead consumers to believe that they are accessing a more exclusive website of the Complainant, when this is not the case. Also, it is argued that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, as the website has been replicated.<\/p>\n The Complainant expresses that the Respondent was using the Complainant’s well-known trademarks without permission in order to get some benefit from the false impression created of a potential affiliation and\/or connection with the Complainant, its trademarks or its services. This false impression is achieved by the full incorporation of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name, as well as in the content of the website.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/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 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": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns trademarks including the word “weverse” in several countries, such as the international trademark “weverse” n°1826294, registered since September 13, 2024 and the European Union trademarks “weverse” n°018617164, “weverse” n°018617163 and “weverse” n°018617162, all of them registered since April 19, 2022.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"weverse.vip": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}