Mouradubeux.com

The timeline behind mouradubeux.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 Moura Dubeux Engenharia S/A v. Vladimir Ivanov Case No. D2025-0998 1. The Parties The Complainant is Moura Dubeux Engenharia S/A, Brazil, represented by Queiroz Cavalcanti Advocacia, Brazil. The Respondent is Vladimir Ivanov, Kosovo. 1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mouradubeux.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2025. On March 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 2025, 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 (“Redacted for Privacy”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 13, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on the same date. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 March 14, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2025. 1 The reference to Kosovo should be understood to be in the context of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). page 2 The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2025. 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 is a leading Brazilian real estate development and construction company. The Complainant holds numerous registered trademarks recognized by the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property, including MD MOURA DUBEUX bearing Registration No. 82542964, registered on March 31, 2009 (the “Mark”). Additionally, the Complainant owns the domain name <mouradubeux.com.br>, registered on April 27, 1998, which resolves to the Complainant’s principal commercial website. (Annex 8 to the Complaint). The Complainant is active on the Internet and operates social media accounts under the Company’s name, including Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn, which together boast over 380,000 followers. (Annex 9 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name was registered on August 31, 2023. It resolves to a website featuring an offer to sell the disputed domain name, as well as pornographic content and numerous pay-per-click links redirecting users to other pornographic and gambling websites. (Annex 10 to the Complaint). 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. The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is substantially similar to the Mark. The Complainant contends that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark or any variation thereof, that the Respondent has not engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to misdirect Internet visitors seeking to reach the Complainant’s website for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 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. 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 that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name consists of the principal and prominent words of the Mark, MOURA DUBEUX, and omits the letters “m” and “d.” Confusing similarity may be established for the purposes of the Policy when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. In this case, the Mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The Top-Level Domain of the disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1, and Monster Energy Company, a Delaware Corporation v. J.H.M. den Ouden, WIPO Case No. D2016-1759. 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 using an unrelated third party trademark to promote pornographic and gambling content does not confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Autodesk, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / 小林 王, WIPO Case No. D2022-0360. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, bad faith may be established by any one of the following non-exhaustive scenarios: page 4 (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain resolves to a website promoting pornographic and gambling content and pay-per-click links. Panels have consistently found that the use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website promoting pornography and gambling content causes reputational and brand name harm and tarnishment. Tipico Co. Ltd. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2020-0446 ; Bank of Jerusalem Ltd. v. Shek Cheung Chung, WIPO Case No. D2017-1153. Moreover, it is clear that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <mouradubeux.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: April 24, 2025

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