Orrnua.com

The timeline behind orrnua.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 Ornua Co-operative Limited v. Queen Lyne, block industry ltd Case No. D2026-0058 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ornua Co-operative Limited, Ireland, represented by Tomkins & Co., Ireland. The Respondent is Queen Lyne, block industry ltd, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <orrnua.com> is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 8, 2026. On January 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 9, 2026, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 12, 2026, 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 January 14, 2026. 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 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 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 Complainant is an Irish dairy co-operative company, founded in 1961, that markets and sells dairy products. The Complainant owns the trademark ORNUA, including but not limited to the following registrations: Jurisdiction Reg. No. Trademark Reg. Date Classes European Union 013558143 ORNUA May 8, 2015 29, 35, 42. European Union 015560493 ORNUA November 16, 2016 1, 29. The Complainant also owns the domain name <ornua.com>, registered on March 13, 2014. The Respondent is Queen Lyne, block industry ltd, from the United States of America. The disputed domain name was registered on December 12, 2025, and resolves to an inactive page. 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 argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ORNUA. The Complainant alleges that there is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with any noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is likely to make Internet users assume that the disputed domain name offers goods/services supplied by the Complainant. According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademark ORNUA and has not authorized the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for the ORNUA trademarks and domain name predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the registration and use of the disputed domain name have been conducted in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 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 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The mark ORNUA is recognizable within the disputed domain name, with the repetition of the letter “r” Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 3.1, 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 name. 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 name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. 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. In the present case, the Panel finds more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks as the disputed domain name incorporates the ORNUA mark with the repetition of the letter “r” and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name. Besides, the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the lack of Response by the Respondent, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and 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 <orrnua.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mario Soerensen Garcia/ Mario Soerensen Garcia Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2026

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