Thalmannpartner-ag.com

The timeline behind thalmannpartner-ag.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 Thalmann & Partner AG v. Bekim Qorri, Avante HR LLC Case No. D2026-0254 1. The Parties The Complainant is Thalmann & Partner AG, Switzerland, represented by Anwaltskanzlei Kost, Switzerland. The Respondent is Bekim Qorri, Avante HR LLC, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thalmannpartner-ag.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 22, 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 Party / Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy efh) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 27, 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 the same date. 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 January 28, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 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 Swiss limited liability company established in 2001 which provides property management services and manages real estate in Switzerland and abroad. The Complainant does not own any registered trademark but claims common law trademark rights in its own company name “Thalmann & Partner AG” (the “Complainant’s Company Name”). The Disputed Domain Name <thalmannpartner-ag.com> was registered on October 12, 2025, many years after the Complainant first started using the Complainant’s Company Name. At the time of rendering of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to an inactive website showing an error message. Screenshots of the website archived on November 7, 2025 (annexed to the Complaint) show that the website displayed the Complainant’s Company Name (including in the copyright notice), listed the Complainant’s actual address and false contact details and purported to offer property management services (the “Respondent’s 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: (a) The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s Company Name in its entirety. The omission of the ampersand (“&”) and the addition of a hyphen are minor technical alterations that do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is typically disregarded under the first element test. (b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating its marks. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that it owns any trademark rights corresponding to the name. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host a fraudulent website that impersonates the Complainant. Such use for phishing or deceptive purposes can never constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. (c) The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is using it in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s Company Name, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name with an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s unregistered mark as to the source or affiliation of the Respondent’s Website. The Respondent’s Website copied the look, feel, and professional identity of the Complainant to deceive the public. The Respondent’s use of false contact details on the Respondent’s Website constitutes classic “bad faith” under the Policy. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the proceedings The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is English. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be German, however, did not give any reasons for its request. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to do so judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 4.5.1). The Panel is mindful of the requirement of paragraph 10(b) of the Rules which provides that in all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Panel observes that the Center has issued its case-related communications in English (being the language of the registration agreement). The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceedings, and it has been notified of its default in English. Further, in ensuring fairness in the selection of language, the Panel shall take into consideration the parties’ level of comfortability with each language, as well as the expenses to be incurred and the possibility of delay in the proceedings if translation is required (see Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho, WIPO Case No. D2003-0679). In the present case, the Panel notes that although the Complainant requested for the proceedings to be in German, the Complainant submitted their Complaint in English and conducted its communications with the Center in English. The Respondent appears to be located in the United States of America where English is a common language. Moreover, the Complainant did not give any reasons as to why the proceedings should be conducted in German. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. Substantive Matters Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 being used by the Respondent in bad faith. page 4 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 mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant does not own any registered trademark with respect to the Complainant’s Company Name, and asserts common law rights in such Company Name. To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, a complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant’s mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the mark is used on the related website or impersonating documents or other instruments) may also support the complainant’s assertion and evidence that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. See section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s Company Name “Thalmann & Partner AG” has been used by the Complainant in commerce since its incorporation in 2001 – a period of more than 24 years. Based on the manner in which the Respondent’s Website was used for impersonation of the Complainant, the Panel notes that the Respondent had clearly specifically targeted the Complainant’s Company Name which supports a finding that the Complainant’s Company Name has acquired significance as a source identifier associated with the Complainant. The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The entirety of the Complainant’s unregistered trademark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name save for the ampersand (“&”) and addition of the hyphen. Furthermore, the gTLD in this case “.com” may be disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s unregistered mark 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 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. In the present case, the Respondent did not submit a Response. The fact that the Respondent did not submit a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-1437; and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). page 5 The Panel notes that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent has trademark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that the Respondent has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel further notes that the Complainant has provided no license or authorization of any kind to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Company Name or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s Company Name. The Respondent would likely not have adopted the Complainant’s trademark if not for the purpose of creating an impression that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with, or originates from, the Complainant. The reproduction of the Complainant’s Company Name (save for the ampersand “&” and the addition of a hyphen) in the Disputed Domain Name, as well as the use of the Complainant’s unregistered trademark on the Respondent’s Website also signal the Respondent’s intention to mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s Website is operated or endorsed by the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was purportedly used to host a website passing off as the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s Company Name (including in the copyright notice) and its actual registered address, and presenting itself as offering property management services similar to the services offered by the Complainant. This type of impersonation scheme cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s unregistered trademark in its entirety save for the ampersand “&” and the addition of a hyphen. By displaying the Complainant’s Company Name (including in the copyright notice) and its actual registered address, on the Respondent’s Website and presenting itself as offering property management services similar to the services offered by the Complainant, the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name to mislead and divert Internet users to the Respondent’s Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s unregistered mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. Further, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name now resolves to an inactive website. 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 composition and prior impersonating use of the Disputed Domain Name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the page 6 current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. 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 <thalmannpartner-ag.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gabriela Kennedy/ Gabriela Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: March 10, 2026

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