Dnvbrazil.com, Dnvbrazil.online, Dnvbrazil.store

The timeline behind dnvbrazil.com

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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION DNV AS v. Andrade Neves Case No. D2025-5198 1. The Parties The Complainant is DNV AS, No rway, represented by Zacco No rway AS, No rway. The Respondent is Andrade Neves, Brazil. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <dnvbrazil.com>, <dnvbrazil.online>, and <dnvbrazil.store> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 15, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response conf irming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was January 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 13, 2026. The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 2026. 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 is DNV AS, a Norwegian company founded in 1864, operating globally as a classif ication society and provider of assurance, certif ication, risk management, and technical advisory services. The Complainant conducts business in more than 100 countries and employs over 15,000 people worldwide. Its activities notably cover the maritime sector, the energy value chain (including renewables, oil and gas), certif ication services, digital risk management solutions, and cybersecurity-related of f erings. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark DNV, which has been registered and used f or several decades in numerous jurisdictions worldwide that include: - DNV f igurative mark, Norwegian trademark registration number 162893, registration date May 26, 1994 in classes 9, 16, 35, 37 and 42. - DNV f igurative mark, European Union trademark registration number 003326873, registration date January 10, 2005 in classes 9,35 and 42. - DNV word mark, United States of America trademark registration number 6513761, registration date October 12, 2021 in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42. The disputed domain names were registered on November 21, 2025. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to a website purporting to present itself as connected to the Complainant. The website made use of the Complainant’s name, trademark, visual identity, and color scheme, and included a f ooter ref erring to “© DNV AS.” On December 2, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent concerning the registration and use of the disputed domain names. No response was received prior to the f iling of the Complaint. At the time of the issuance of this Decision, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names no longer resolve to active websites. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are conf usingly similar to its DNV trademark, in which it holds longstanding and worldwide rights predating the registration of the disputed domain names by several decades. According to the Complainant, the incorporation of the DNV trademark in its entirety, combined with the geographical term “Brazil,” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the applicable generic Top-Level Domains are irrelevant f or the purpose of the compariso n. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. It asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its DNV trademark in any manner, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and that there is no evidence of any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were used to host a website impersonating the Complainant, reproducing its trademark, visual identity, and corporate ref erences without authorization, and without any accurate disclosure of the Respondent’s identity or relationship to the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad f aith. It argues that, given the longstanding reputation and international recognition of the DNV trademark, the page 3 Respondent was necessarily aware of the Complainant and its rights at the time of registration. According to the Complainant, the registration of the disputed domain names incorporating its trademark together with a geographical term, and their use to create a f alse impression of affiliation with the Complainant, demonstrate an intentional attempt to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement. The Complainant also relies on the Respondent’s f ailure to reply to its cease-and-desist letter as an additional indication of bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 names. 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 the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s DNV trademark in its entirety, combined with the geographical term “Brazil.” Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, as is the case here, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive or geographical, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). The addition of such geographical terms does not dispel confusing similarity, as the Complainant’s trademark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names. The Panel f urther notes that the entirety of the Complainant’s DNV trademark is reproduced within each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). Consequently, the Panel f inds that the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel notes that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant or its business activities, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its DNV trademark or to register domain names incorporating that trademark. Further, the evidence on the record shows that, at least prior to the f iling of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to a website that reproduced the Complainant’s trademark, visual identity, and corporate references, and presented itself as associated with the Complainant. Such use is indicative of impersonation or passing of f and is not a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain names. page 4 Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name f or illegal or illegitimate activity, including impersonation or passing off, can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1). Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel f inds that the Complainant’s DNV trademark was registered and widely used long bef ore the registration of the disputed domain names on November 21, 2025. The Complainant has demonstrated that its trademark enjoys a longstanding and international reputation, including in Brazil, where the Respondent is located. In view of the distinctiveness and reputation of the DNV trademark, the Panel f inds it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s DNV trademark together with the geographical term “Brazil,” a combination that reinf orces the f alse impression of an of f icial or localized presence of the Complainant. Such composition of the disputed domain names supports a f inding that they were deliberately chosen to target the Complainant and its trademark. The record further shows that, prior to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names were used to resolve to a website that reproduced the Complainant’s trademark, visual identity, and corporate ref erences, including a f ooter referring to “© DNV AS,” and that failed to include any disclaimer clarifying the absence of an af f iliation with the Complainant. The Panel f inds that this conduct constitutes impersonation or passing off and demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of conf usion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also notes that the Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter dated December 2, 2025. While a respondent is under no obligation to respond to such correspondence, panels have considered a f ailure to do so, in the circumstances of a case, as a f urther indication of bad f aith. The Panel f urther observes that, at the time of this Decision, the disputed domain names no longer resolve to active websites. However, the passive holding of domain names incorporating a well-known trademark does not prevent a finding of bad faith, particularly where the circumstances of the case indicate that the disputed domain names were registered to target the Complainant. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad f aith, and that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 names <dnvbrazil.com>, <dnvbrazil.online>, and <dnvbrazil.store> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Elise Dufour/ Elise Dufour Sole Panelist Date: February, 6 2026

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