Westmore · UDRP DecisionRoyalunbrew.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <royalunbrew.com>, finding it to be a typosquatted version of the ROYAL UNIBREW mark. The Complainant’s evidence credibly showed that the domain was used in an impersonation and payment fraud scheme, while the company whose identity appeared in the registration denied registering or authorizing the domain. All three UDRP elements were satisfied.
The timeline behind royalunbrew.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind royalunbrew.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a strong UDRP fact pattern combining single-letter typosquatting, email impersonation, false invoicing, attempted payment diversion, and misuse of an innocent third party’s identity in registration records. The corroborating denial from the company named as registrant was particularly important because it supported the fraud evidence while explaining why the published respondent identity was redacted.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Royal Unibrew A/S v. Name Redacted Case No. D2018-2706 1. The Parties The Complainant is Royal Unibrew A/S of Faxe, Denmark, self-represented. The Respondent is Name Redacted 1 . 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <royalunbrew.com> is registered with Ligne Web Services SARL (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 23, 2018. On November 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center has also indicated to the Complainant that the language of the Registration Agreement was French, and invited the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of proceeding, a Complaint translated into French, or a request for English to be the language of proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of proceeding on December 5, 2018. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 11, 2018. On December 14, 2018 and on December 21, 2018, representatives of a company named as the registrant of the disputed domain name contacted the Center explaining that apparently the Respondent misused the identity of this company to register and use the domain name for “criminal” activities. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 2, 2019. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant produces, markets and sells beers and other beverages. The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark ROYAL UNIBREW, including International Trade Mark No. 854698 registered on June 7, 2005 designating among others the European Union, and maintains a website under the domain name <royalunibrew.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on September 24, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - That the disputed domain name <royalunbrew.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark ROYAL UNIBREW because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the omission of the letter “i” does not avoid a likelihood of confusion but rather constitutes typosquatting; - That the Complainant discovered that an unidentified third party misuses the identity of an actual manager of the Complainant and a false “[...]@royalunbrew.com” email address to lure potential customers to make prepayments for Coca-Cola products by issuing false pro-forma invoices in the name of the Complainant. - That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because (i) there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties, and (ii) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to conduct fraudulent activities; - That the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to make customers believe that they are dealing with the Complainant and thereby inducing customers to make payments to a bank account that does not belong to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a response. However, on December 14, 2014, a representative of a company named as the registrant of the disputed domain name wrote to the Center that this company did not register the disputed domain name but that someone else is using its name. On December 21, 2018, a patent attorney acting for said company stated that the person who registered the disputed domain name is unknown to them and that apparently there are “criminal elements” who act in the name of the company named as the registrant of the disputed domain name without any authorization. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 6.1. Language of the Proceeding In the present case, French is the language of the registration agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. Paragraph 10 of the Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. The Complainant filed the Complaint in English and, on December 5, 2018, it submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding. Considering (i) that the Respondent did not submit a response or any request regarding the language of the proceeding, and (ii) that the German company named as the registrant of the disputed domain name does seem to be the real Respondent; and (iii) the actual registrant used the disputed domain name in its email address to send messages in English, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding is English. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds several registrations for the trademark ROYAL UNIBREW, including International Trade Mark No. 854698 registered on June 7, 2005. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ROYAL UNIBREW, because the omission of the letter “i” does not dispel confusing similarity. Rather, this is a matter of typosquatting. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. Moreover, the Complainant has provided credible evidence that the Respondent is misusing the disputed domain name for fraudulent activities. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has credibly shown that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to make customers believe that they are dealing with the Complainant and thereby induce customers to make payments to a bank account that does not belong to the Complainant. This is corroborated by the fact that representatives of the “real” company named as the registrant of the disputed domain name confirmed to the Center that they have nothing to do with the disputed domain name. Apparently, the Respondent misused the identity of both the Complainant (and one of its managers) and of a third entity for its fraudulent activities. Under these circumstances, the panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <royalunbrew.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: January 10, 2019 1 The Panel has decided to redact the name of the named Respondent, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 ("The Panel has decided that no purpose is to be served by including the named Respondent in this decision, and has therefore redacted its name from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrars regarding transfer of the disputed domain names that includes the named Respondent, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrars as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published based on exceptional circumstances").
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around royalunbrew.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.