Glb-finance.com

The timeline behind glb-finance.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Globant España S.A. v. 312312 3123, A Sa Da Sheng De Case No. D2025-4057 1. The Parties The Complainant is Globant España S.A., Spain, represented by Marval O ́Farrell & Mairal, Argentina. The Respondent is 312312 3123, A Sa Da Sheng De, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <glb-f inance.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2025. On October 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for privacy: information) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 20, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on October 21, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 21, 2025. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 2025. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant was founded in 2003 in Argentina, later expanding to other countries around the world and being listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Presently, the Complainant employs over 29,000 prof essionals and reported a revenue of USD 2.3 billion in the second quarter of 2024. The Complainant is the owner of the f ollowing, amongst other dozens of other trademark registrations (Annexes J and K to the Complaint): - Argentina trademark registration No. 3278115 f o r the wo rd mark GLOBANT, f iled on December 9, 2020, registered on May 4, 2022, in class 35; - European Union trademark registration No. 018356639 f or the word mark GLOBANT, f iled on December 17, 2020, registered on May 21, 2021, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42; and - European Union trademark registration No. 018356645 for the word and device mark GLOBANT, f iled on December 17, 2020, registered on May 21, 2021, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2025, and presently resolves to the Registrar’s parked webpage. In the past, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that f eatured the Complainant’s trademark and purportedly promoted a business called “Globant Alquiler” (Annex N to the Complaint) in a manner similar to the use of the domain name <globant.vip>, which has been the subject of an earlier UDRP d ispute (Globant S.A. v. 312312 3123, A Sa Da Sheng De, WIPO Case No . D2025-2311). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant asserts to have received countless awards and recognitions, amongst which the Top 10 of Fortune’s 2024 Change the World list (Annex F to the Complaint), as well as having signif icantly expanded the visibility and recognition of its trademarks through prominent sponsorships with globally renowned organizations such as with Williams Racing in Formula 1, the NBA’s franchise L.A. Clippers, and its collaboration with FIFA, what demonstrates the widespread use and exposure of the Complainant’s trademarks on an international scale, further solidif ying its reputation and inf luence in the global market. Under the Complainant’s view, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s GLOBANT trademark since the letters “glb” could be interpreted as an acronym f or GLOBANT, and be perceived by Internet users as a ref erence or abbreviation to refer to the Complainant’s trademark, what is f urther corroborated by the contents of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved prominently displaying the Complainant’s GLOBANT trademark in its entirety, making it evident that the Respondent was attempting to pass off as the Complainant and to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill, with the apparent purpose of def rauding Internet users. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name given that: a) the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the GLOBANT trademark, or to apply for use of any domain name incorporating, totally or partially, such trademark; b) the Complainant has no legal and/or business relationship with the Respondent which would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization f or the Respondent to use the disputed domain name; c) there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; page 3 d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide offering of goods or services e) the Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and f) the best Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a f raudulent scheme that has been reported by several users to the Complainant (Annex M to the Complaint) in which the operators of the scam impersonate the Complainant and purport to explain how the purported “business” works, thus having the Respondent the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name and using it in an attempt to deceive individuals by means of a f raudulent webpage which appears to have been created f or the sole purpose of collecting personal data by encouraging individuals to register and invest, unduly displaying the Complainant’s registered trademark to create a f alse impression of legitimacy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met f or this Panel to order the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant: (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 f aith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the af oresaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transf er of the disputed domain name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 f inds that 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 also took note of the previous content of the website associated with the disputed domain name to conf irm conf using similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15. Although the addition of other terms (here, a hyphen and “f inance”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainant has made a prima f acie case against the Respondent who has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither authorized, licensed, or been allowed to use the Complainant’s trademark, whether in the disputed domain name, or in any other way. Also, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the past use of the disputed domain name in connection with a webpage impersonating the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide of f ering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity here, claimed impersonation and fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. This case presents the following circumstances which indicate under the balance of probabilities bad f aith registration and use of the disputed domain name: a) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good f aith use by it of the disputed domain name; b) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4); page 5 c) the present passive holding of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3; and d) the indication of f alse or incomplete address, not being the Center able to deliver the written communication to the Respondent, e) the Respondent was subject to a prior UDRP dispute with the Complainant concerning the domain name <globant.vip>. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <glb-f inance.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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