Swedsec.info

The timeline behind swedsec.info

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 Swedsec Licensiering AB v. Asad Bilal Case No. D2025-4649 1. The Parties The Complainant is Swedsec Licensiering AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Asad Bilal, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <swedsec.info> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 10, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 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 (“Identity withheld due to privacy protection”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 12, 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 November 13, 2025. 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 November 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on November 21, 2025. The Center commenced the panel appointment process on December 15, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 Swedish company established in 2001, providing licensing services to the Swedish financial industry. The Complainant owns, inter alia, the Swedish Trademark No. 621783 for , registered on May 24, 2022, in International Classes 35, 36, 41, 42, and 45. In addition, the Complainant owns several domain names incorporating the SWEDSEC trademark, including <swedsec.se>. The disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2025, well after the Complainant secured rights in the mark SWEDSEC. The disputed domain name is currently inactive. However, as shown by the Complainant, the disputed domain previously resolved to a look-a-like of the Complainant’s official website, using the SWEDSEC trademark, as well as the official website’s design, color scheme, and event calendar. The Respondent appears to be a private individual based in Pakistan. 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. With respect to the first element, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical/confusingly similar to the SWEDSEC trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant notes that the trademark SWEDSEC is included in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “.info” only serves as a generic Top-Level Domain and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, according to the Complainant. Regarding the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Complainant points out, the Respondent deliberately copied the Complainant’s official website in its entirety and the disputed domain name previously resolved to this look-a-like website, creating a misleading impression of affiliation with the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As for the third element, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since it was registered on January 31, 2025, that is after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in SWEDSEC. Moreover, the Complainant points out, the fact that the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s trademark followed by the generic Top-Level Domain “.info” as well as the use of the disputed domain name for a website that replicates the Complainant’s official website strongly suggest that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. With respect to the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant notes that the previous use of the disputed domain name to replicate its official website constitutes bad faith as well. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, in response to the Center’s Notification of the Complaint, the Respondent confirmed by email on November 21, 2025, that they are willing to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant did not respond to the Respondent’s offer and therefore no settlement was reached between the Parties. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Consent to Transfer The Respondent confirmed by email of November 21, 2025, that they are willing to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant: “I acknowledge receipt of the Complaint regarding the domain [name] swedsec.info. To avoid unnecessary proceedings, I hereby voluntarily consent to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.” Regarding such a consent to transfer a disputed domain name, section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the ‘standard settlement process’ described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis). In some cases, despite such respondent consent, a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits. Scenarios in which a panel may find it appropriate to do so include (i) where the panel finds a broader interest in recording a substantive decision on the merits – notably recalling UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii) discussing a pattern of bad faith conduct, (ii) where while consenting to the requested remedy the respondent has expressly disclaimed any bad faith, (iii) where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision, (iv) where there is ambiguity as to the scope of the respondent’s consent, or (v) where the panel wishes to be certain that the complainant has shown that it possesses relevant trademark rights.” In this case, the Panel finds that it can proceed to make an order for transfer since (i) the Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademark for SWEDSEC, (ii) the Complainant’s requested remedy in these proceedings is the transfer of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent’s unconditional consent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in the abovementioned email is unambiguous. Accordingly, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to 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 <swedsec.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Benoit Van Asbroeck/ Benoit Van Asbroeck Sole Panelist Date: January 2, 2026

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