Bdoglobal-forensics.com

The timeline behind bdoglobal-forensics.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 Stichting BDO v. William Saunders Case No. D2026-0350 1. The Parties The Complainant is Stichting BDO, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is William Saunders, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bdoglobal-forensics.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2026. On January 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 28, 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 Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 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 February 2, 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 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 Haig Oghigian as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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, Stichting BDO, is an international network of independent public accounting, tax, consulting, and business advisory firms which are members of BDO International Limited and perform professional services under the name and style of BDO. The Complainant’s public accounting, tax, and advisory firms provide professional services in over 160 countries and in 2025 had revenue exceeding USD 16 billion. The Complainant’s services include, among others, Forensics and Investigations Consulting. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for BDO, such as but not limited to: Trademark Country/Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date BDO European Union 002419778 December 9, 2002 BDO United Kingdom UK00902419778 December 9, 2002 BDO United States 4854142 November 17, 2015 BDO International 770374 October 30, 2001 The Complainant operates its website at <bdoglobal.com>, <bdo.global>, and others. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 3, 2025 and 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. - The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant demonstrated ownership of numerous trademark registrations for BDO. The Complaint states that the relevant trademark, BDO, is contained within the disputed domain name, though with the terms “global” and “forensics” added on the end. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, as the BDO trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name and as “global” and “forensics” are descriptive terms and as prescribed by 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, which states that the addition of this descriptive or meaningless term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further argues that these generic terms, if anything, reinforce the connection with the Complainant as the Complainant primarily operates its websites at domain names which include the term “global”, and offers services in the forensic financial services industry. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant argues that as they have demonstrated rights to the BDO mark contained within the disputed domain name, and have never licensed such mark to the Respondent, or have ever licensed or otherwise given permission for the creation of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further adds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name had an active Mail Exchange (“MX”) record associated with the disputed domain name for the purpose of hosting email addresses at the disputed domain name, meaning it could be used for phishing or other malicious activities while posing as the Complainant; and that prior UDRP panels have found that activities potentially convey to unsuspecting internet users the false belief that any website or email connected to that domain name is associated with the Complainant, and such a risk of affiliation or association with the complainant and its mark cannot constitute fair use. - The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the fact that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s mark, while having no relationship to that mark, which has the potential to disrupt the Complainant’s business and therefore constitutes bad faith registration. The Complainant adds that the address provided by the Respondent in registration of the disputed domain name is not a valid address, adding to the likelihood that it was registered with false information and demonstrating likely bad faith registration. The Complainant states although the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active web page, prior UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name will not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding, and argues that active MX records indicate that the disputed domain name may be used for fraudulent email communications. 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, here, “global” and “forensics”, 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent acted in bad faith as it reproduced, without authorization, the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name with the addition of the terms “global” and “forensics”, which are directly related to the Complainant’s business and indicate the Respondent knew of the Complainant, for a potential misuse of the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that activating MX records to designate an email server and enable email is an action beyond mere registration of the disputed domain name and indicates that the Respondent most likely intended to use the disputed domain name for illegitimate purposes. 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. 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 distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, 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. 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 <bdoglobal-forensics.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Haig Oghigian/ Haig Oghigian Sole Panelist Date: March 19, 2026

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