Elecnor-mx.cc, Elecnor-mx.vip

The timeline behind elecnor-mx.cc

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 ELECNOR, S.A v. esdrfg zxcvb, dsxfcgvbhjherdtfygadsf Case No. D2025-4413 1. The Parties The Complainant is ELECNOR, S.A, Spain, represented by Clarke, Modet y Cia. S.L., Spain. The Respondent is esdrfg zxcvb, dsxfcgvbhjherdtfygadsf, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <elecnor-mx.cc> and <elecnor-mx.vip> are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 27, 2025. On October 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 29, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names 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 October 29, 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 amended Complaint on October 29, 2025. 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 November 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 24, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Richard C.K. van Oerle as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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 contends that it is one of the leading corporations in project development, construction and operation through two major business areas, infrastructure business and concession business and has become one of the most outstanding Spanish business groups and a benchmark in the infrastructure, renewable energy and technology sectors. The Complainant is the parent company of a group of companies located in Spain and in many other countries all over the world, inter alia in Mexico, and is made up of more than 24,000 employees. The Complainant owns, among many others, the following trademarks: - Spanish trademark for ELECNOR (and design mark), registration No. 2822835, filed on August 29, 1986, and in force until August 29, 2026; - European Union trademark for ELECNOR (and design mark), registration No. 009496746, filed on November 4, 2010, registered on April 4, 2011, and in force until November 4, 2030; - Mexican trademark for ELECNOR (and design mark), registration No. 1335493, registered on November 30, 2012, and in force until August 13, 2032; - United States of America trademark for ELECNOR (and design mark), registration No. 4394394, filed on July 10, 2012, registered November 30, 2012, and in force until August 13, 2032. The registrations will hereafter together referred to in singular as the “Trademark”. Furthermore, the Complainant operates through its corporate website: “www.elecnor.com” and in its jurisdictions under other extensions, such as <elecnor.mx> and <elecnor.com.mx> in Mexico. The disputed domain names were both registered on September 21, 2025, and are apparently inactive resolving to an Internet browser error message. The Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters for each of the disputed domain names to the Registrar and, via the Registrar, to the Respondent, as well as reminders. No reply was obtained from the Respondent. The Registrar asked the Complainant to file a complaint through a form, and indicated that the Complainant may initiate a UDRP proceeding. 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 names. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has selected the disputed domain name with the intention to confuse, that the addition of “mx” does not avoid confusion, and that the extensions (“.cc” an “.vip”) are disregarded under the identity or confusing similarity test. The disputed domain names could give rise to confusion and/or association with the Complainant's business group in Mexico. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names: the Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain names, holds no trademark rights in them, and has no connection with or authorization from the Complainant. page 3 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the domain names long after the Complainant had established extensive and internationally recognized trademark rights in the Trademark. In the Complainant’s view, the Respondent could not have been unaware of its Trademark, which is widely known and not one that third parties would legitimately adopt without creating a false association. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain names, no evidence of any legitimate use, and no justification for the registration. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s well- known Trademark, which has a strong online presence, and deliberately incorporated it into the domain names to exploit the Complainant’s reputation or create a false impression of affiliation. The Complainant argues that there is no plausible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the domain names other than an intention to target the Complainant. The Complainant also highlights that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the names and did not respond to multiple cease-and- desist communications, which the Complainant considers further evidence of bad faith. The Complainant notes that the domain names resolve to blank pages and describes this “passive holding” as consistent with bad-faith conduct, particularly given the distinctiveness and global recognition of the Trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s registration of identical domain names without any legitimate justification, combined with the lack of response and the overall circumstances, constitutes opportunistic bad faith. The Complainant also argues that the inclusion of the term “mx” was intended to reinforce the misleading association with the Complainant by suggesting a connection to its operations in Mexico. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint: (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. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Complainant has requested to consolidate the proceedings for both disputed domain names into one proceeding. Pursuant to paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. This condition has been met, as the Respondent is the registrant of both disputed domain names. page 4 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 entirety of the Trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “-mx”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The record contains no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by one of the disputed domain names, holds trademark rights in them, and has a connection with or authorization from the Complainant. There is no evidence of any legitimate use, and no justification for the registration. 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. page 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Trademark is a famous and worldwide known trademark, as previously already recognized in ELECNOR, S.A. c. Tomas Tobajas Romero, WIPO Case No. D2021-0586. The disputed domain names replicate the Trademark in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and the additional term “mx”, which is the ISO code for and the country code Top-Level Domain of Mexico (where the Complainant also operates). The composition of the disputed domain names strongly suggests that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its Trademark. Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain name comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. As already discussed above, ELECNOR is a famous and worldwide known trademark, and the addition of “- mx” underscores that Respondent chose these disputed domain names in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. The circumstances that the Respondent did not reply to the letter sent by the Complainant, nor respond formally to the Complaint, supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith. The provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service is a further indication of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6. In the present case, it is obvious that both the name of the Respondent as well as the contact details are false. 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 distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s Trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain names, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 names <elecnor-mx.cc> and <elecnor-mx.vip> be transferred to the Complainant. /Richard C.K. van Oerle/ Richard C.K. van Oerle Sole Panelist Date: December 4, 2025

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