Carel.help

The timeline behind carel.help

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 Carel Industries S.p.A v. nie zhao yang Case No. D2026-0310 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carel Industries S.p.A, Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is nie zhao yang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carel.help> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) 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 amended Complaint in English on January 29, 2026. On January 27, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On January 29, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 4, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 24, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2026. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 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 Carel Industries S.p.A., an Italian company with registered office in Brugine (Padova), Italy, active in the field of control solutions for air conditioning, refrigeration and heating, and systems for humidification and evaporative cooling. According to the Complaint, the Complainant operates internationally, with approximately 80% of its sales made outside Italy, through subsidiaries and an organization present in around eighty countries. The Complainant states that it designs its products to achieve energy savings and reduce environmental impact, combining advanced technologies and customized services, and that its solutions are used in commercial, industrial, and residential applications. The Complainant owns an international trademark portfolio for the CAREL marks, which include but are not limited to the following registrations: Italy, trademark No. VR97C000394 (last renewal No. 36201700010663), registered March 16, 2000, class 9; European Union, trademark No. 493767, registered October 14, 1999, classes 9 and 11; European Union, trademark No. 18378909, registered August 3, 2021, classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 35, 37, 41 and 42; International Trademark Registration, No. 676173, registered June 24, 1997, classes 9, 11 and 16, designating inter alia China and Singapore. The Complainant also owns domain names incorporating the mark CAREL, including <carel.com>. The Respondent is identified as “nie zhao yang”, with an address in China. The disputed domain name was registered on December 22, 2025. According to the record, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve, and has not resolved in the past, to any 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 disputed domain name is identical to its CAREL trademark, noting that the term “carel” constitutes the dominant and distinctive part of the disputed domain name and that the addition of the descriptive term “.help” does nothing to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first UDRP element. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, submitting that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the CAREL mark, that the Respondent holds no relevant CAREL trademark registrations, and that prior to notice of the dispute the disputed domain name did not resolve to any active website nor was there evidence of demonstrable preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. page 3 Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, noting that its CAREL mark was well-known and long-established at the time of the Respondent’s registration on December 22, 2025, that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant’s mark, that the Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity, and that the current non-use of the domain name amounts to passive holding which, in light of the distinctive nature of the CAREL mark and the other circumstances, constitutes bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. 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, and the Complainant requests that English be the language of the proceeding for several reasons, including that English is widely used in international relations; that the disputed domain name is formed by words in Roman characters and not in Chinese script and includes the English term “help”; and that the Complainant is not in a position to conduct the proceedings in Chinese without a great deal of additional expense and delay due to the need for translation of the Complaint and the supporting Annexes. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion 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). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 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 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. Based on the evidence provided, the Panel notes that the Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that there are no elements in this case that point to the Respondent having made any reasonable and demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, according to the record, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve, and has not resolved in the past, to any active website. In this regard, the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively, without making any use of it, does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent in the circumstances of this case (see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. 赵竹飞 (Zhao Zhu Fei), WIPO Case No. D2020-0691; and Vente-Privee.Com and Vente-Privee.com IP S.à.r.l. v. 崔郡 (jun cui), WIPO Case No. D2021-1685). 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 has registered a domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s prior CAREL trademarks. The Panel also notes that these trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on December 22, 2025, by nearly three decades, with the Complainant’s first relevant registration dating back to 1997. This means that even a cursory Internet or trademark search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have revealed the Complainant’s longstanding rights in the CAREL mark, its intensive use in connection with control solutions for air conditioning, refrigeration and related fields, and its international renown, with 80% of sales occurring outside Italy. In the Panel’s view, the above elements indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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. page 5 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 and longstanding reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response and the implausibility of any good faith use by the Respondent, 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 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 <carel.help> be transferred to the Complainant. /Deanna Wong Wai Man/ Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2026

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