Biontechpfizer.com

The timeline behind biontechpfizer.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 BioNTech SE v. NameInvest Inc. Case No. D2026-0147 1. The Parties The Complainant is BioNTech SE, Germany, represented by MSA IP - Milojevic Sekulic & Associates, Serbia. The Respondent is NameInvest Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <biontechpfizer.com> is registered with Internetx GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2026. On January 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not file an amendment to the Complaint. The Center verified that 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 January 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 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 a German biotechnology company founded in 2008 and headquartered in Mainz, Germany. It develops and manufactures immunotherapies and vaccines, including messenger RNA (mRNA)-based technologies. The Complainant gained worldwide recognition during the COVID-19 pandemic for developing, together with Pfizer, the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark BIONTECH, including, inter alia: European Union Trade Mark No. 008964447, registered on December 22, 2010; International Registration No. 1370266, registered on July 10, 2017; United States of America Trademark No. 5712036, registered on April 2, 2019. These registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also owns a portfolio of domain names incorporating its BIONTECH mark, including <biontech.com>, <biontech.de>, <biontech.net>, and other domain names reflecting its online presence. The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2021. The evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links related to healthcare and vaccines. The webpage also includes an offer to purchase the disputed domain name. The Complainant further submitted evidence that MX records are configured for the disputed domain name. The Respondent has been involved in prior UDRP proceedings concerning domain names incorporating third-party trademarks. 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: 1. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BIONTECH trademark, which it owns through numerous trademark registrations predating the registration of the disputed domain name. 2. the domain name incorporates the BIONTECH mark in its entirety together with the term “pfizer”. 3. the addition of the term “pfizer”, referring to the Complainant’s collaboration with Pfizer in developing the COVID-19 vaccine, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. page 3 4. the BIONTECH trademark has acquired worldwide recognition, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been recognized as well-known in prior UDRP decisions. 5. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 6. the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links related to healthcare and vaccines, includes an offer for sale, and has configured MX records, creating a risk of phishing or other fraudulent use. 7. the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its well-known trademark, including for commercial gain and as part of a pattern of registering domain names incorporating third-party trademarks. 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 Select 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other term “pfizer” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is disregarded for purposes of the comparison. 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 that 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. page 4 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. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use the BIONTECH mark. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click parking page related to healthcare and vaccines and is offered for sale. Such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests where it targets the Complainant’s mark. In addition, the configuration of MX records in the circumstances of this case creates a risk of deceptive email use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as phishing, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 it implausible that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its BIONTECH trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive mark in its entirety together with the term “pfizer”, directly referencing the collaboration between the Complainant and Pfizer in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. The record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links related to healthcare and vaccines, which constitutes an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The website also offers the disputed domain name for sale. The evidence further indicates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names incorporating third-party trademarks. In addition, the configuration of MX records associated with the disputed domain name reinforces the inference of bad faith given the risk of impersonation or fraudulent email activity. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <biontechpfizer.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira/ Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira Sole Panelist Date: March 6, 2026

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