Westmore · UDRP DecisionEventos-enel.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <eventos-enel.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENEL mark because it incorporated ENEL in its entirety with the Spanish dictionary term “eventos,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because there was no authorization, business relationship, bona fide offering, legitimate noncommercial or fair use, or evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the domain. The Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on the domain’s composition, the absence of a reasonable explanation, the risk of confusion and implied affiliation, and passive holding through an inactive landing page.
The timeline behind eventos-enel.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 eventos-enel.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a trademark-plus-dictionary-term domain can satisfy all three UDRP elements even when the domain has no substantive active content. The recognizable incorporation of ENEL, the implied-affiliation risk created by the domain’s composition, the absence of authorization or any respondent explanation, and passive holding were collectively decisive.
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 Enel S.p.A. v. Jorge Bravo Case No. D2021-2136 1. The Parties The Complainant is Enel S.p.A., Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti, Italy. The Respondent is Jorge Bravo, Chile. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eventos-enel.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2021. On July 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 6, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 8, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2021. The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2021. 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 Founded in 1962, the Complainant is an Italian multinational manufacturer and distributor of electricity and gas, serving more than 26 million Italian customers. The Complainant is the parent company of the Enel Group, which operates through its subsidiaries in more than 32 countries across five continents, including in Chile, where the Respondent purportedly resides. The Enel Group is made up of approximately 70,000 employees worldwide and its business is highly diversified, providing hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, solar, thermoelectric, nuclear, and other renewable sources of power. The Complainant owns the ENEL trademark, which is used in Italy and in many jurisdictions worldwide for a variety of goods and services. For example, the Complainant owns numerous trademarks in jurisdictions worldwide, including, but not limited to: ENEL, Italian Trademark Registration No. 001299011, registered on June 1, 2010 in international classes 9, 11, 16, 19, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 42; and ENEL, European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 00756338, registered on August 23, 1999 in international classes 9, 11, 16, 19, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 42 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “ENEL Mark”). The Complainant is also the owner of more than 100 domain names that incorporate the ENEL Mark. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 20, 2021, resolving to a passively used webpage with no content except a non-descript blurry starlit sky type background. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. - The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. - The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)): (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry, a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ENEL Mark. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the ENEL Mark based on its many years of use as well as its numerous registered trademarks for the ENEL Mark in Italy and in many jurisdictions worldwide. The general consensus is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot , WIPO Case No. D2015-1734 . The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ENEL Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the ENEL Mark in its entirety preceded by and connected by a hyphen to the dictionary term “eventos”, a translation of the term “events” in Spanish (consistent with the Respondent allegedly residing in Chile), and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of another term. As stated in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. For example, numerous UDRP decisions have reiterated that the addition of a dictionary term to a trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Allianz Global Investors of America, L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) v. Bingo-Bongo , WIPO Case No. D2011-0795 ; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia , WIPO Case No. D2008-0923 . Moreover, it is well established that a disputed domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a hyphen. The presence or absence of punctuation marks such as hyphens cannot on their own avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Helen Siew , WIPO Case No. D2004-0656 . Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva , WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11. Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENEL Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s ENEL Mark. The Complainant does not have any business relationship with the Respondent, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a landing page with no content (see above in factual background), the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name similar to it, nor any evidence that the Respondent was making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4 (c). Finally, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, comprising the entirety of the ENEL Mark preceded by a dictionary term joined with a hyphen, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use here, as it effectively suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not submitted any substantive arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. As such, the Panel determines that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as set forth below. First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in an attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s landing page by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ENEL Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its ENEL Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com” , WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). Second, the registration of a domain name that reproduces a trademark in its entirety (being identical or confusingly similar to such trademark) by an individual or entity that has no relationship to that mark, without any reasonable explanation on the motives for the registration, may be suggestive of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming , WIPO Case No. D2006-1107 ; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co ., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 . Finally, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Cond é Nast S.A. v. ChinaVogue.com , WIPO Case No. D2005-0615 ; Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry – Succession Saint Exupéry – D’Agay v. Perlegos Properties , WIPO Case No. D2005-1085 . It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 ; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall , WIPO Case No. D2000-0574 . Here, the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive landing page, thus demonstrating bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 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 <eventos-enel.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: August 20, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around eventos-enel.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.