Gruporenfe.com

The timeline behind gruporenfe.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 Renfe Operadora, Entidad pública empresarial v. Mariana Cabrera Case No. D2026-0203 1. The Parties The Complainant is Renfe Operadora, Entidad pública Empresarial, Spain, represented by PONS IP, Spain. The Respondent is Mariana Cabrera, Puerto Rico, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <gruporenfe.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 19, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 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 (unknown / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 21, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 26, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 February 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Miguel B. O'Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 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 public business entity and Spain's national state-owned railway company, where “Renfe” stands for “Red Nacional de los Ferrocarriles Españoles”, which can be translated as “Spanish National Railway Network”. The Complainant emerged from the former Spanish National Railway Network created on January 24,1941, with the nationalization of Spain's railways. The Complainant provided printouts obtained from third parties’ websites showing that the Complainant is referred to as “Grupo Renfe”. The Complainant is the leader in rail transport for passengers and goods and a point of reference in the mobility sector in Spain. It has 5,000 trains running every day in Spain, more than 500 million passengers a year, approximately 15,000 employees. The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks in different jurisdictions, including the word “RENFE”, such as the following: Spanish Trademark Registration No. 2632695 RENFE (figurative), in classes 12, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, registered on July 22, 2005; European Union Trademark Registration No. 4943783 RENFE, in classes 12, 16, 35, 38 and 39, registered on February 26, 2007; and United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00904943783 RENFE, in classes 12, 16, 35, 38 and 39, registered on February 26, 2007. The Complainant also owns several domain names which include the word “renfe” and operates to a great extent through the website “www.renfe.com”, providing information on all of its activities and services. Further, the Complainant owns the domain name <gruporenfe.es>. The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2023 and at the time of drafting of this Decision does not resolve to an active 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 Complainant’s trademark RENFE has acquired distinctiveness through decades of consistent and widespread use in commerce. page 3 The disputed domain name <gruporenfe.com> is confusingly similar, if not identical, to the Complainant’s RENFE trademark, and the “Grupo Renfe” trade name of the Complainant as used in commerce. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent was not known prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and it is not currently known under the name “RENFE” or “Gruporenfe”. The respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant nor is it in any other way authorized to use the Complainant’s RENFE and related trademarks. As far as the Complainant is aware, the term “Gruporenfe” is not the subject of any trademark registration in which the Respondent has rights. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not provide goods or services under that name. In addition, the Respondent has not been authorized to register the disputed domain name. Consequently, it is highly likely that the Respondent, being aware of the goodwill of the Complainant’s RENFE trademark, has registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the trademark’s goodwill. The Complainant finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. The Respondent by registering the disputed domain name has no other purpose than taking advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and recognition among the public, or to block the Complainant from using and registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant 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. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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 terms here, “grupo” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he 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 Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s RENFE trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name on February 15, 2023. By that time, the Complainant had long registered and intensely used the RENFE trademarks. The Panel also finds that by registering the disputed domain name which includes the Complainant’s trademark RENFE in its entirety and includes the term “grupo”, in the absence of a credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name and noting that it is nearly identical to the Complainant’s domain name <gruporenfe.es>, the Respondent more likely than not was targeting the Complainant and its business with the intention to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) 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 or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the lack of response, 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 third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <gruporenfe.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Miguel B. O'Farrell/ Miguel B. O'Farrell Sole Panelist Date: March 12, 2026

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