Fortunepigs-sl.com

The timeline behind fortunepigs-sl.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 Jorge, SL, Fortune Pig, SL v. Timmy Lavison Case No. D2025-5169 1. The Parties The Complainants are Jorge, SL, Spain, and Fortune Pig, SL, Spain, represented by Integra, Spain. The Respondent is Timmy Lavison, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fortunepigs-sl.com> is registered with Mat Bao Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2025. On December 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 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 (Hidden for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on December 15, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on December 16, 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 December 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 13, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on December 26 and 29, 2025, requesting extension to the Response due date. In accordance with paragraph 5(b) of the Rules, on December 30, 2025, the Center notified the Parties of the extended Response due date of January 17, 2026. The Center did not receive any formal Response from the Respondent. On January 19, 2026, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of panel appointment process. page 2 The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2026. 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 Complainants are Spanish based companies and part of the Spanish meat group known as GRUPO JORGE (Annexes 1 and 2 to the Complaint). The Complainants own or have rights in the European Union Trademark Registration FORTUNE PIG GRUPO JORGE (figurative), Reg. No. 016858045, registered on November 2, 2017 (Annex 14 to the Complaint). Further, the Complainants own or have rights in the domain name <fortunepig.es> (Annex 3 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name was registered on November 28, 2025 (Annex 5 to the Complaint). At the time of filing this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring the Complainants’ trademark (including its stylized elements) and the Complainants’ group name GRUPO JORGE and providing information about pork meat while purporting to be an official website of the Complainants, and using the Complainants’ postal address; the website did not display any disclaimer clarifying that the website is not controlled or authorized by the Complainants. (Annex 15 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a cancellation of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainants contend that they hold a registered trademark which comprises the term “fortune pig”. The Complainants also highlight the that the disputed domain name includes the entirety of their mark with the addition of the descriptive term “sl” which is the abbreviation of the legal form of a company (in Spanish: “Sociedad Limitada”) and the letter “s” after the term “pig”. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a complainant’s trademark, this will be sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity. The Complainants further submit that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: The Respondent does not have any trademark rights and there is also no evidence that the Respondent retains any unregistered trademark rights in the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not received any license from the Complainants to use a domain name featuring their trademark. The Complainants submit that the Respondent has not used, nor prepared to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary: The disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates the Complainants and using their trademark and postal address without authorization; it is clear that the Respondent merely intends to cause confusion in the minds of online users. Finally, the Complainants allege that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith: The Complainants’ trademark registration precedes the creation date of the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ mark is well known. The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith: The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, online users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark and the Complainants. The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring the page 3 Complainants’ trademark and name of the Complainants’ group gives Internet users a false impression that the site is controlled or authorized by the Complainants or otherwise belongs to the Complainants. Additionally, the Complainants submit that they are being permanently attacked since 2023 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Complainants submitted evidence which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the figurative mark FORTUNE PIG GRUPO JORGE. In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainants have rights, since the textual term “FORTUNE PIG” is the dominant element of the figurative trademark of the Complainants and this term remains recognizable within the disputed domain name; the design elements are disregarded for purposes of assessing the confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.10. Further, the addition of the letter “s” and the term “-sl” after “pig” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Finally, it has also long been held that Top-Level Domains are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often impossible 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. 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. page 4 Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark in any manner including in a domain name. The Respondent did not formally reply and hence has not rebutted the Complainants’ contentions. Further, the composition of the disputed domain name, coupled with the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying the Complainants’ mark (including the stylized elements of the mark) and purporting to be either the Complainants or operating an official website under control of the Complainants, affirms the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainants as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the disputed domain name. Finally, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed: impersonation / passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainants must show that: - the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. (i) In the present case, the Complainants provided evidence which demonstrates that they own and/or have rights in the registered trademark FORTUNE PIG GRUPO JORGE, registered and used several years before the disputed domain name was registered. It is therefore inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainants and their rights in the mark, which leads to the necessary inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. This finding is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the dominant textual elements “FORTUNE PIG” of the Complainants’ trademark entirely and merely adds the letter “s” and the descriptive term “-sl”, which is the abbreviation of the legal form of the Complainants’ company (in Spanish: “Sociedad Limitada”). Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent. (ii) The Complainants have put forward evidence that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to resolve to a website featuring the Complainants’ trademark (including its stylized elements) as well as the Complainants group name GRUPO JORGE and the Complainants’ postal address; in doing so the Respondent purports to be the Complainants or operate an authorized official website under control of the Complainants, which is not the case. This clearly disrupts the Complainants’ business and shows that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark, which constitutes bad faith use. The evidence and documents produced and put forward by the Complainants together with the fact that the Respondent has failed to formally file a Response and therefore failed to present any evidence of any good page 5 faith registration and use with regard to the disputed domain name further affirms the Panel’s finding that the disputed domain name was registered and is used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainants have 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 <fortunepigs-sl.com> be cancelled. /Peter Burgstaller/ Peter Burgstaller Sole Panelist Date: January 31, 2026

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