Rtvoost.mobi

The timeline behind rtvoost.mobi

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 RTV Oost v. Jérôme Rudel Case No. D2026-0392 1. The Parties The Complainant is Stichting RTV Oost, Netherlands (Kingdom of the) (“the Netherlands”), represented by Coda Advocaten, the Netherlands. The Respondent is Jérôme Rudel, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <rtvoost.mobi> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 30, 2026. On January 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 1, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 3, 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 4, 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 11, 2026. The Center appointed Mireille Buydens as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 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, RTV Oost, was established in 1978 in the Netherlands and has developed into the main public broadcasting company for Overijssel in the eastern part of the Netherlands. The Complainant has approximately 120 employees and is the official Dutch regional broadcasting channel for communication to the public in case of crisis. The Complainant owns a trademark registration for the sign RTV OOST (hereafter “the Trademark” or “the RTV OOST Trademark”) and for a variation thereof (TV OOST): - Benelux trademark registration no. 695387 for RTV OOST (word mark), registered on January 1, 2002; - Benelux trademark registration no. 695389 for TV OOST (word mark), registered on January 1, 2002; The Complainant is using the domain names <rtvoost.nl> and <oost.nl> for its official website, which includes the regional news, sports news and background information. The disputed domain name was registered on December 7, 2007. According to the Complaint, the Complainant has recently discovered that the disputed domain name resolves to a website impersonating the Complainant by displaying news article headlines and information, in particular information promoting Russian athletes. At the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page. On January 20, 2026, the Complainant wrote a letter to the registrar asking to take the website under the disputed domain name off-line and disclosing the contact details of the registrant. The registrar did not reply to this letter. 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 the RTV OOST Trademark as it includes the Trademark in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is misleading because it redirects to a fake website with news and messages from third parties which are presented as if they were news and messages by the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant explains that the website under the disputed domain name misleads the public because it impersonates the Complainant, while promoting in particular Russian athletes. The disputed domain name is not used for bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further asserts that the Complainant is the official broadcasting partner for messages from the Dutch government for the eastern part of the Netherlands in case of disasters or emergencies. If the public is misled and believes that the website under the disputed domain name is indeed operated by the Complainant, it may not notice emergency messages, which may have serious consequences. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant explains that the RTV OOST Trademark is well established, having been registered in 2001 and used for decades. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name for the purpose of misleading the public, presenting news items on the Respondent’s website as if they were from RTV Oost, which is not the case. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the RTV OOST Trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with no addition or alteration. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the RTV OOST Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Further, the generic Top-Level Domain “.mobi” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain name from being identical to the RTV OOST Trademark. 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. 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. page 4 The Respondent is not licensed by, nor affiliated with, the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, either. On the contrary, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the RTV OOST Trademark in its entirety, with no modification or alteration, and as such carries a risk of implied affiliation, which cannot constitute fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. The Panel further notes the impersonating nature of the website at the disputed domain name: (1) the website under the disputed domain name, which displays (in Dutch) the same type of (sport) news as the Complainant, prominently displays the RTV OOST Trademark; (2) the website presents itself as being the Complainant, including by reproducing a copyright notice referring to the Complainant and explaining that the website is operated by the Complainant (explaining in Dutch that “the website RTV OOST is published by RTV OOST, a Dutch company”); (3) the website proposes Internet users to contact the Respondent, using an email address reproducing the RTV OOST Trademark (which points to the fact that MX records have been activated). As a result, the Respondent falsely induces Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website operated or endorsed by the Complainant. Panels have constantly held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. The Panel notes that the Respondent has composed the disputed domain name by reproducing the Complainant’s RTV OOST Trademark in its entirety, with no modification nor alteration. As noted above, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent intended to confuse Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is affiliated with, or endorsed by, the Complainant. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel can only reasonably infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s RTV OOST Trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to it by causing confusion among Internet users. Besides, the Panel notes that a quick search for the terms “RTV OOST” online, would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its RTV OOST Trademark. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s RTV OOST Trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. 1 Moreover, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here impersonating or passing off, constitutes bad faith. In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s Trademark, for the same television and news services, in the same language (Dutch), reproducing a copyright notice referring to the Complainant and explaining that the website is actually operated by the Complainant. Besides, the website proposes Internet users to contact the Respondent, using an email address reproducing the RTV OOST Trademark, which means that MX records have been activated and that the disputed domain name could be used for phishing activities. In light of this, it seems inconceivable that the Respondent would have registered and used the disputed domain name for a reason other than seeking to unduly benefit from the Complainant, its RTV OOST Trademark, and associated goodwill. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 1 The Panel notes that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8). page 5 The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently passively held. 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 (1) the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s RTV OOST Trademark in the Netherlands, (2) the composition of the disputed domain name (which is a mere reproduction of the Complainant’s RTV OOST Trademark), and finds that in the circumstances of this case the 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 <rtvoost.mobi> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mireille Buydens/ Mireille Buydens Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2026

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