Complainant states that it was established in 1982, it is “a leading global technology company specializing in the development of software and digital media solutions,”; it is “widely recognized as one of the world’s leading companies in the development of professional software for digital media creation, publishing, and communication”; and “[w]ith more than thirty-five years of continuous commercial use, Adobe Photoshop has become one of the most widely recognized image editing software applications worldwide.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Names were created on the following dates:<\/p>\n
According to the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Names are used in connection with websites that “reproduce templates clearly designed to impersonate Adobe Inc.’s ‘PHOTOSHOP’,” which “is likely to mislead consumers and create confusion regarding a potential affiliation with the Complainant”; and that the websites using the Disputed Domain Names “promote tools that purport to enable users to download the Complainant’s software, namely Adobe Photoshop, in unauthorized form through the Respondent’s websites.”<\/p>\n
Complainant states that it sent a “formal notice” to Respondent about the Disputed Domain Names on August 4, 2026, but Respondent has not replied.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the ADOBE Trademark because, inter alia<\/em>, each of the Disputed Domain Names contains the ADOBE Trademark in its entirety.<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because, inter alia<\/em>, “Respondent is neither a licensee nor an authorized distributor of the Complainant and has received no permission – express or implied – to use the Complainant’s ‘Adobe’, ‘PS’, and ‘PHOTOSHOP’ trademarks or to register domain names incorporating them”; and Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names as described above “clearly targets the Complainant’s products and is inherently illegitimate, as it is based on the unauthorized distribution and exploitation of the Complainant’s software.”<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names as described above “is carried out with the intent of obtaining a commercial advantage by inducing unsuspecting Internet users to access the websites and click on unverified and potentially harmful links, under the false impression that they may obtain a free version of Adobe Photoshop, thereby exposing them to significant security and reliability risks”; use of a domain name for illegal activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods or impersonation\/passing off constitutes bad faith; and Respondent failed to reply to Complainant’s cease and desist notice.<\/p>\n No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are 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 UDRP).<\/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 Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Panel finds that consolidation of the seven Disputed Domain Names in a single proceeding is appropriate here, given the appearance that all of the Disputed Domain Names are “subject to common control” and that consolidation “would be fair and equitable to all parties.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11.2.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-03 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it “holds since decades multiple trademark registrations that include or consist of the terms ‘ADOBE’, and ‘PHOTOSHOP’ across various jurisdictions,” including the following (the “ADOBE Trademark”):<\/p>\n\n