Oaklinsvaluations.com

The timeline behind oaklinsvaluations.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 Oaklins Swiss Verein v. EndorseChild Foundation Case No. D2026-0228 1. The Parties Complainant is Oaklins Swiss Verein, Switzerland, represented by Matchmark B.V., Kingdom of the Netherlands. Respondent is EndorseChild Foundation, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <oaklinsvaluations.com> is registered with Namecheap, Inc. (“Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on January 21, 2026. On January 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2026, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from that in the Complaint (e.g., the Complaint indicated that the identity of Respondent was “Not known”). The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 22, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 26, 2026 adding “EndorseChild Foundation” as Respondent. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 16, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 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 Complainant is a global mergers and acquisitions and financial advisor. It owns several registrations for the word mark “OAKLINS”, including: - Benelux Trademark Registration. No. 984386, registered on January 12, 2016, for, among other things, financial expertise and valuation services. - Two International Registrations, Reg. No. 1293053, registered January 17, 2016, and Reg. No. 1294409, registered February 9, 2012, each based on the above Benelux registration, designating numerous countries, including Australia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, among others. Complainant’s website is <oaklins.com>. The disputed domain name was created November 5, 2025. As of the time the Complaint was filed and at the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s OAKLINS mark above the heading “Trusted Property Valuation & Building Consultancy Experts.” Prior to filing the Complaint, Complainant sent Respondent an email, using the “contact” email address listed on Respondent’s website, questioning the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s registered trade name, but did not receive a response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. In particular: - The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it combines the OAKLINS mark with the term “valuations.” The added term is descriptive and subordinate to the term “oaklins;” this is reinforced by the fact that Respondent’s website uses OAKLINS standing alone. Moreover, Complainant offers valuation services, including at <valuations.oaklins.com>. - Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to be legitimate enterprise. - The information provided in Respondent’s domain name registration is incomplete. The address is to a neighborhood (no street or house number) in Lagos, Nigeria. - The address displayed on Respondent’s website is actually the physical address of one of Complainant’s offices. However, that is not correct because only Complaint’s offices are located there. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. - Some aspects of Respondent’s website share the “look and feel” of Complainant’s site. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To prevail under the Policy a complainant must prove, as to the domain name at issue, that: (a) it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights; (b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it; and (c) it has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy, paragraph 4(a). A respondent’s failure to respond does not automatically result in a finding for the complainant; the complainant continues to have the burden of establishing each element. Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. The Panel may, however, draw appropriate inferences from the default. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel determines that “EndorseChild Foundation” is the appropriate Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.4.5 (in cases involving a privacy service, Panel has discretion to determine appropriate respondent). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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. Complainant’s OAKLINS mark is not identical to the disputed domain name; however, the entire the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Although the addition of the term “valuations” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition 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. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in proceedings under the Policy 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 remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. A search of the French companies database did not disclose any “oaklins” entity other than those affiliated with Complainant. Complainant’s evidence shows that Respondent purports to offer valuation services while presenting page 4 Complainant’s Paris address as its own. Panel finds that Respondent’s use is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. Respondent has not rebutted 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 list in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy is not exhaustive; 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. Here, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s address in Paris as its own makes it clear that Respondent was aware of, and targeted, Complainant’s preexisting OAKLINS mark to attract visitors who would believe the website was Complainant’s. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <oaklinsvaluations.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Debra J. Stanek/ Debra J. Stanek Sole Panelist Date: March 10, 2026

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