Star-globant.com

The timeline behind star-globant.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 Globant España S.A. v. tongliang li Case No. D2026-0380 1. The Parties The Complainant is Globant España S.A., Spain, represented by Marval O’Farrell & Mairal, Argentina. The Respondent is tongliang li, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <star-globant.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2026. On January 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 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: information unavailable.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 2, 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 5, 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 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2026. The Center appointed Daniel Peña 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, Globant S.A., is a digitally native company founded in Argentina in 2003. It has grown into a global leader in technology and digital transformation, offering services such as software development, IT consulting, and digital marketing. The Complainant operates on every continent, employs over 30,000 professionals, and reported revenues of USD 2.5 billion in Q2 2025. It has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2014 under the ticker “GLOB,” and counts major corporations such as American Express, Coca-Cola, Mercado Libre, and Unilever among its clients. The Complainant has received numerous international awards, including “Company of the Decade” (BRAVO Business Awards, 2024), “Star Performer and Leader in Software Product Engineering Services” (Everest Group, 2024), recognition among Fortune’s “100 Fastest Growing Companies” (2023), and inclusion in Fortune’s “Change the World” list (2024). It has also expanded through acquisitions of companies such as GUT, Pentalog, and Genexus, and has enhanced the visibility of its brand through sponsorships with Williams Racing (Formula 1), the NBA’s L.A. Clippers, and FIFA. The Complainant owns over 50 trademark registrations for GLOBANT worldwide. In Argentina, it holds 12 active registrations covering multiple classes, including both word and logo marks registrations for GLOBANT (Reg. Nos. 3.278.119, 3.278.118, 3.278.117, 3.278.116, 3.278.115, 3.278.114, 3.278.113, 3.278.112, 3.278.111, 3.289.920, 3.289.921, and 3.289.922). Additionally, the Complainant owns trademark registrations in several other jurisdictions, such as: - European Union Trade Mark Nos. 18356645 and 18356639 (classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42), registered on May 21, 2021; - Mexican Reg. No. 2299689 (class 35), registered on September 20, 2021; - United Kingdom Trade Mark No. 3831223 (classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42), registered on January 13, 2023; - Indian Reg. No. 4785553 (class 41), registered on December 17, 2020. The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2025. It resolved to a website impersonating the Complainant, displaying its trademark and logo on a login page, and later became inactive, showing only an error page. 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 Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark GLOBANT because it reproduces the mark in its entirety. The addition of the prefix “star” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was previously used to host a website that falsely suggested affiliation with the Complainant by displaying its trademark and logo. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial use. The disputed domain name is currently inactive, further confirming the absence of legitimate interests. page 3 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Given the notoriety of the GLOBANT trademark, the Respondent could not credibly claim ignorance when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant, deceive users, and collect personal data, thereby intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. The subsequent passive holding of the disputed domain name reinforces bad faith under established UDRP precedent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. The Complainant has several trademark registrations for GLOBANT worldwide, including registrations in Argentina where its business originated, and additional registrations in the European Union, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and India. These registrations cover multiple classes and confirm the Complainant’s extensive rights in the mark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark GLOBANT in its entirety. The addition of the prefix “star-” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The “.com” gTLD is a technical requirement and is disregarded in the comparison. Pursuant to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, the test for confusing similarity involves a straightforward comparison to determine whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or a dominant feature of it, panels normally consider the domain name confusingly similar. Section 1.8 further explains that the addition of descriptive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Section 1.11.1 confirms that the applicable Top-Level Domain is disregarded for purposes of comparison. In these circumstances, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GLOBANT. The Panel finds that the first element of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof rests with the Complainant, once a prima facie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. As noted in Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, this reflects the difficulty for a complainant to prove a negative, since such information is usually within the Respondent’s control. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark GLOBANT, nor is there any legal or business relationship between the parties that would authorize such use. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that it has used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant’s evidence shows that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website that falsely suggested affiliation with the Complainant by prominently displaying its trademark and logo on a purported login page. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. page 4 Section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 makes clear that the use of a domain name for impersonation or passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. At present, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website and instead leads to an error or inactive page, confirming that the Respondent is making no legitimate use of it. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As per paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The trademark GLOBANT has been extensively used since 2003, is widely publicized, and has become well-known internationally. It is therefore implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain name on October 15, 2025. Section 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 notes that where a complainant’s mark is widely known, panels are prepared to infer that a respondent knew or should have known that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. The Complainant’s evidence shows that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and falsely presenting itself as an official platform, operated in Spanish, with the apparent intent to deceive users, collect personal data, and mislead them into believing they were interacting with the Complainant. Such conduct falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as it demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. At present, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website and instead leads to an error page. Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 confirms that passive holding of a domain name, particularly where the complainant’s mark is well-known and no plausible good faith use exists, may constitute bad faith use. In this case, the Respondent’s concealment of its identity, the absence of any legitimate use, and the implausibility of any good faith purpose reinforce the finding of bad faith. In these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the third element of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <star-globant.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Daniel Peña/ Daniel Peña Sole Panelist Date: March 25, 2026

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