Uniqacapitalmarkets.com

The timeline behind uniqacapitalmarkets.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 UNIQA Insurance Group AG v. Angelina Scholten Case No. D2026-0273 1. The Parties The Complainant is UNIQA Insurance Group AG, Austria, represented by Schonherr Rechtsanwalte GmbH, Austria. The Respondent is Angelina Scholten, Netherlands (Kingdom of the). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <uniqacapitalmarkets.com> is registered with Ultahost, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2026. On January 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 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 (Not yet disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 26, 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 30, 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 February 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2026. The Center appointed Andrea Cappai as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 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 UNIQA Insurance Group AG, an insurance company headquartered in Vienna, Austria. The record indicates that the Complainant has operated under the brand UNIQA since 1998 and includes materials describing a corporate history going back to 1811. The Complainant’s Austrian subsidiary is reported in the record as having held a market share of around 21 percent in 2024. UNIQA Insurance Group AG is the shareholder of UNIQA Capital Markets GmbH (Austrian companies register number FN 163653t), incorporated in 1997, with an official business address in Vienna, Austria. A press item dated May 26, 2025, reports that the asset management unit within UNIQA Capital Markets GmbH manages approximately EUR 22 billion. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations (Class 36): - UNIQA – Austria – No. 179703 – registered on December 22, 1998; - UNIQA – European Union – No. 1132174 – registered on August 16, 2000. The Complainant operates its principal group website under “uniqagroup.com” and its main website for the Austrian market under “uniqa.at”. The disputed domain name is <uniqacapitalmarkets.com>. The registrar verification indicates that the disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2025. The screenshots submitted in the record show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website presenting itself as “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” and purporting to offer online trading services, including sign-in and account registration functionality. The screenshots further show a “contact” section providing the email address “[...]@uniqacapitalmarkets.com”, together with risk warning language and statements to the effect that “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” is “authorized and regulated” in Austria. The Complaint was filed against a privacy or proxy service. The underlying registrant details were disclosed by the Registrar during the proceeding. No further information about the Respondent appears on the record. The Respondent did not submit any Response. 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 that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its UNIQA trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety together with the terms “capital” and “markets”, which the Complainant submits are descriptive and do not prevent confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, has not been authorised to use the UNIQA trademark, and is using the disputed domain name and related subdomains for a website which presents itself as “Uniqa Capital Markets” and invites users to sign in or register. Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, asserting that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant and its trademark, and contending that the Respondent is seeking to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. In particular, the Complainant points to the way in which the website presents itself and to the technical configuration of the disputed domain name for email. 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 confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, such as “capital” and “markets”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 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 recognised 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 Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the UNIQA trademark, and there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The screenshots show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website presenting itself as “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” and purporting to offer online trading-related services, including user sign-in and account registration through related subdomains. The screenshots do not show any clear disclosure on the website that it is not affiliated with the Complainant. The screenshots also include a statement on the website to the effect that “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” is “authorized and regulated” in Austria. page 4 In these circumstances, and absent any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel sees no evidence that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name falls within any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. In particular, the Panel sees no evidence of a bona fide offering within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i), nor any indication of legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii). 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 Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s UNIQA trademark in its entirety together with the terms “capital” and “markets”, which relate to the Complainant’s financial services activities. The disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant’s trademark registrations. In light of the composition of the disputed domain name and the timing of its registration, and further having regard to the manner in which the disputed domain name has been used, and absent any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds it reasonable to infer that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration and targeted the Complainant’s trademark. The screenshots show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website presenting itself as “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” and purporting to offer online trading services, including user sign-in and account registration through related subdomains. The screenshots further show Austrian contact details and the email address “[...]@uniqacapitalmarkets.com”, together with risk warning language and statements to the effect that “Uniqa Capital Markets S.A.” is “authorized and regulated” in Austria. The screenshots do not show any clear disclosure on the website that it is not affiliated with the Complainant. The materials submitted in the proceeding also include screenshots of a third-party broker website and a complaint form bearing Windsor Brokers branding, which the Complainant submits was found at the disputed domain name. Against that background, the overall layout and content structure shown in the screenshots appears consistent with the use of a repurposed broker template. The record does not, however, contain any indication that such a template is linked to the Complainant. Taken together, the circumstances support the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 <uniqacapitalmarkets.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Cappai/ Andrea Cappai Sole Panelist Date: March 19, 2026

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