WIPO D2025-3437 · decided 9 October 2025
AXION EDGE OOD v. Jermain Banks
The parties
- Complainant
- AXION EDGE OOD
- Respondent
- Jermain Banks
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found edgehounds.com confusingly similar to the EDGE HOUND trademark, because the whole trademark is reproduced and the added letter "s" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Jermain Banks had no rights or legitimate interests, because the Respondent filed no response and used the domain name to attract and profit from Internet users seeking AXION EDGE OOD's services. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith because EDGE HOUND is highly distinctive, the domain name is its plural, it was registered three months after the trademark applications and it hosted similar AI tools. |
Why does Edge Hound matter for a complaint today?
AXION EDGE OOD is a Bulgarian company. It sells AI-powered trading and investing research under the EDGE HOUND trademark at edgehound.com. It filed European Union trade mark No. 019151757 on March 5, 2025 and International Registration No. 1856449 on March 7, 2025. On June 4, 2025, Jermain Banks, listed in the United States, registered edgehounds.com and put up a sports betting AI tools site branded "Edge Hounds". AXION EDGE OOD sent cease and desist letters on July 14 and August 4, 2025, and got no reply. It filed the UDRP complaint with the WIPO Center on August 26, 2025, represented by Kinstellar, s.r.o. The panelist, Adam Taylor, ordered the transfer on October 9, 2025, about six weeks later. The Respondent targeted bettors and AXION EDGE OOD targets investors, but the panel still treated the services as similar. For a Bulgarian business, the point is this: an EU trade mark and an International Registration filed in March 2025 were enough to recover a .com domain name from a registrant in the United States. The unanswered cease and desist letters also counted against the Respondent.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 1.8: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
- Section 3.1.4: How does a complainant prove that a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Adam Taylor, decided the case on 9 October 2025.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.