Cmacgm.online

The timeline behind cmacgm.online

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 CMA CGM v. sivanand jothi, Empire Shipping Agencies Uk Ltd Case No. D2026-0168 1. The Parties The Complainant is CMA CGM, France, represented by MIIP MADE IN IP, France. The Respondent is sivanand jothi, Empire Shipping Agencies Uk Ltd, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cmacgm.online> 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 January 15, 2026. On January 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 19, 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 (Information not available / The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 19, 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 23, 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 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 16, 2026. The Center appointed Halvor Manshaus as the sole panelist in this matter on February 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French company formed in 1996 following the privatization of a state-owned maritime shipping entity and its merger with an established private shipping operator. The Complainant is one of the world’s leading container shipping companies. It operates in approximately 160 countries and maintains a global network including around 400 offices, 1,000 warehouses, and a workforce of approximately 160,000 employees. The Complainant operates a fleet of more than 650 vessels, serving about 420 of the world’s commercial ports and operating more than 250 shipping lines worldwide. The Complainant holds several trademark registrations comprising of CMA CGM in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including: - The French trademark registration number 3872760 for classes 12, 37, and 39, registered on November 9, 2011; - The United Kingdom trademark registration number UK00911844867 for classes 12, 37, and 39, registered on October 16, 2013; - The European Union Trade Mark registration number 011844867 for classes 12, 37, and 39, registered on October 16, 2013; and - The United States of America trademark registration number 4721947 for classes 12, 37, and 39, registered on April 21, 2015. The Complainant holds several domain names, including <cma-cgm.com> and <cmacgm.com>, both registered on February 28, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on December 20, 2025, and redirects to an inactive website. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, as it reproduces the mark in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity. Further, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that its trademark is well known and the Respondent has no authorization or business activity corresponding to the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by it. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial use as it resolves to an inactive website. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that its trademark is well known internationally and that the Respondent therefore must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent’s company name which refers to shipping, suggests an intention to exploit the Complainant’s reputation. page 3 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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel further notes that the gTLD (“.online”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is generally disregarded for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. As such, 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. 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 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. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and that the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. In the Panel’s view, this supports a finding that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. 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. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, 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. Accordingly, 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 <cmacgm.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Halvor Manshaus/ Halvor Manshaus Sole Panelist Date: March 9, 2026

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