Fortunepigssl.com

The timeline behind fortunepigssl.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fortune Pig SL, Jorge, SL v. Egon Hunt Case No. D2024-4361 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fortune Pig SL and Jorge, SL, Spain, represented by Integra, Spain. The Respondent is Egon Hunt, Estonia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fortunepigssl.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2024. On October 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 24, 2024, 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 (Hidden for privacy / Redacted for Privacy, Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 24, 2024, 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 October 25, 2024. 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 October 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 2024. 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 Fortune Pig SL (“the First Complainant”) and Jorge SL (“the Second Complainant”) hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant” form part of the famous Spanish meat group known as Grupo Jorge. The Second Complainant is the owner of the European Union device trademark No. 016858045 FORTUNE PIG GRUPO JORGE, registered on November 2, 2017, covering goods and services in classes 29, 35 and 39. The disputed domain name was registered on September 2, 2024, and resolves to a website, currently suspended, that previously offered for sale goods similar to those offered by the Complainant. The record shows that the disputed domain name was also used in a fraudulent email scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it is being permanently attacked since the end of 2022 by the same owners, who are creating and copying fraudulent web pages in which they pretend to be some of the companies of GRUPO JORGE (The Pink Pig SA, Fortune Pig SL, Le Porc Gourmet SL or Jorge SL, among others). The Complainant considers that the real persons, or companies, behind all the infringing domain names similar to the disputed domain name have Spanish origin. The Complainant contends to have detected real frauds to customers who have bought product containers from the prior infringing domains thinking that they were buying from Grupo Jorge. The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. page 3 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s name and trademark, mentioned in section 4 above (Factual Background) when it registered the disputed domain name on September 2, 2024. The Complainant’s use of its trademark and pig meat business activities predates the disputed domain name registration by many years. The Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, has targeted the Complainant’s trademark and business with the intention to confuse Internet users and capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark for its own monetary benefit. The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name is also a significant factor to consider that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. page 4 The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, as indicated above, the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name was also used in a scheme to defraud the Complainant’s customers. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is not currently active because it has been suspended, which tends to confirm that it has been used in bad faith. In the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <fortunepigssl.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Miguel B. O’Farrell/ Miguel B. O’Farrell Sole Panelist Date: December 16, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.