Patton Signature logo Patton Signature
Case Active  ·  D2026-1064
WIPO Case No. D2026-1064  ·  Equifax Inc. v. Tyler Patton

Patton
Signature.

The public archive of the documentary record in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2026‑1064. Every filing, correspondence, and exhibit - collected and preserved for the reviewing court and the public record.

Documentation Archive Live
Interactive Record Documentation Archive
What the Archive Will Document

Six things the decision does that the record does not support.

The Decision ordered transfer of <equifax.press> on May 7, 2026. The Archive will place the Decision’s conclusions beside the underlying submissions, exhibit by exhibit, and let the record speak for itself.

No. 01

Metadata dismissed without authentication procedure

The Decision discounted the Respondent’s Annex C metadata by suggesting it may have been fabricated, while simultaneously acknowledging the Panel had no means to determine fabrication. The archive will place that statement beside the actual metadata and the Policy’s evidentiary framework.

Decision §6.C · Annex C
No. 02

Telstra applied to a four-day-old registration

The passive-holding doctrine from Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows addresses sustained non-use over time. The Decision applies it to a domain four days old. The archive will document the temporal premise of the doctrine and its application here.

Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
No. 03

Privacy proxy treated as active concealment

GoDaddy applied its default privacy proxy automatically. The Respondent did not elect it. The Telstra factor requires an "active step" to conceal identity. The archive will document the distinction and the ICANN registration data that rebuts it.

ICANN Lookup · lookup.icann.org · equifax.press
No. 04

Arguments restated into something easier to reject

The Decision summarized the Respondent’s Rule 17 abuse-of-process argument as a complaint about a dual-purpose use of the settlement suspension, then ruled that dual-purpose framing reflects “due diligence.” The actual argument was the opposite. The archive places the original language beside the restatement and the ruling.

Decision §5.B and §6.E
No. 05

Federal precedent applied to facts that do not match it

The Decision invokes PETA v. Doughney to support the bad-faith finding. The actual holding of that case rests on two facts: parody and commercial conduct, neither of which is present here. The archive will document the distinction with the case text on one side and the decision text on the other.

PETA v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)
No. 06

An extension granted five days, used one

The original decision deadline of April 30, 2026 passed without notice to the parties. After the Respondent inquired on May 4, an extension to May 11 was announced on May 6. The decision issued on May 7. The archive will document the sequence in detail.

Apr 30 · May 4 · May 6 · May 7

The proceeding, in four numbers.

What this archive will examine in full.

4
Days from Registration
to Complaint
Substantive Filings,
Counted as “A Multitude”
1
Day of the
Five-Day Extension Used
14
Anchored Critiques
in the Forthcoming Archive
Reach Out

If you have information, are reporting on this matter, or want to follow the federal review, send a message.

Or write directly: pattonsignature@gmail.com