Cellnextower.com

The timeline behind cellnextower.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 Cellnex Telecom, S.A. v. Lavish Sharma Case No. D2025-5387 1. The Parties The Complainant is Cellnex Telecom, S.A., Spain, represented by Ubilibet, Spain. The Respondent is Lavish Sharma, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cellnextower.com> 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 December 23, 2025. On December 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 26, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 26, 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 December 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 January 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2026. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 2, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a primary infrastructure operator for wireless telecommunications in Europe. It currently manages approximately 128,000 sites, with 71,000 already in its portfolio, and the remainder in the process of being rolled out or planned to be rolled out by 2030. The Complainant offers services across Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. According to the latest data in 2024, it reported a revenue of approximately 3.94 billion EUR, and had around 2,640 employees. The Complainant is the owner of a number of word and figurative trademark registrations for a trademark containing CELLNEX, including: European Union Trade Mark No. 013523329 (registered April 13, 2015) and United Kingdom Trademark No. 00913523329 (registered April 13, 2015), for the word trademark CELLNEX; and Spanish Trademark No. M3629662 (registered March 15, 2017) and French Trademark No. 4336355 (registered June 2, 2017), for a figurative trademark containing the text CELLNEX. The Complainant is also the owner of a number of trademark registrations for the word trademark ON TOWER, including European Union Trade Mark No. 013324025 (registered February 17, 2015) and United Kingdom Trademark No. 00913324025 (registered February 17, 2015). The disputed domain name was registered on August 15, 2025. The Complainant has provided a screenshot, dated December 16, 2025, showing the disputed domain name resolved to a website with the banner “Cellnex Tower”, containing the headline “Tower Construction Services”, and purporting to offer communication tower installation services. As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website very similar to the one contained in the Complainant’s screenshot. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the contact details specified on the Respondent’s website on August 28, 2025, and to the Registrar on October 15, 2025. The Complainant did not receive a response to these letters from the Respondent. 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. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights on the following grounds, among others. The disputed domain name includes, alongside “cellnex”, the term “tower”, which is not only descriptive of the activity carried out by the Complainant under its trademarks, but also forms part of other trademarks owned by the Complainant. The combination of “cellnex” with “tower” not only creates an association between that term and the Complainant’s t rademarks, but also increases the overall similarity of the disputed domain name to that trademark, thereby making it more likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the following grounds, among others. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or allowed the Registrant or any third party to use its CELLNEX or ON TOWER trademarks in the disputed domain name or in any other way that would confer validity or legitimacy upon such usage. There is no evidence that any of the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is being used for commercial purposes, to obtain commercial benefits, by misleading consumers into associating the disputed domain name with the Complainant's trademarks. Another piece of evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is that the Respondent never replied to the Complainant’s cease-and- desist letters. page 3 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the following grounds, among others. Given the strong presence of the Complainant in business circles and the notoriety of its trademarks, it is truly implausible to suggest that a person could be unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks, especially considering that the Respondent is engaged in the same sector of activity, which increases the likelihood that it was aware of the existence of the trademarks. Furthermore, the mere coincidence in the choice of the disputed domain name is highly unlikely, given that the terms it contains, both individually and collectively, appear to be entirely consistent with the idea that the disputed domain name is related to the Complainant. The Respondent is taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s good reputation and renown by replicating its registered trademark CELLNEX in the disputed domain name, with the sole inferable intention of causing consumers to believe that the disputed domain name, and the content offered at the website to which it resolves, is directly and lawfully associated with the Complainant. This is an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or a service offered on the website. 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 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. It is the owner of word trademark and figurative trademark registrations for trademarks consisting of, or containing, the word CELLNEX. The entirety of the Complainant’s CELLNEX word trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with the addition of the word “tower”. The Panel finds the Complainant’s CELLNEX trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, and that the addition of the word “tower” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. 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. page 4 The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CELLNEX trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to a website that reproduced the Complainant’s CELLNEX trademark and which purported to offer services of the same type as the services provided by the Complainant under its trademark. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in this way unfairly took advantage of the Complainant’s trademark for the Respondent’s benefit, and falsely suggested a connection or affiliation with the Complainant to purportedly offer the Complainant’s services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, such use does not confer on the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not rebutted this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the present case, the Panel notes that: (i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than a decade after the Complainant first registered its CELLNEX trademark; (ii) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CELLNEX trademark in its entirety, and merely adds the word “tower”, which refers to services (tower construction) that the Complainant provides under its trademark; and (iii) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website at which the Complainant’s trademark is used. It is clear the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The evidence shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. 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 name <cellnextower.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrew F. Christie/ Andrew F. Christie Sole Panelist Date: February 16, 2026

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