Maestro4police.com

The timeline behind maestro4police.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 IANUS Technologies Ltd v. George Georgiou, DYG P.C. Case No. D2026-0416 1. The Parties The Complainant is IANUS Technologies Ltd, Cyprus, internally represented. The Respondent is George Georgiou, DYG P.C., Greece, represented by M. C. Loizides & Associates LLC, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <maestro4police.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2026. On February 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 3, 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 (DYG I.K.E.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 9, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 9, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 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 develops software solutions in the fields of defence, internal security and civil protection. One of its products is MAESTRO4Police – a crisis and incident management software solution for use in connection with law enforcement and public safety deployments. The Complainant does not have a registered trademark for MAESTRO4POLICE and claims having unregistered trademark rights in it. The Respondent’s company participated in the development of the MAESTRO4Police platform. The disputed domain name was registered on April 29, 2025. It currently resolves to a landing webpage that displays the text “Maintenance mode is on”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it is the exclusive owner of the distinctive brand name and trade identifier MAESTRO4POLICE, which derives from and is linked to its MAESTRO platform. The Complainant maintains that the MAESTRO4POLICE designation has been continuously used in commerce in connection with law enforcement and public safety deployments, pilot deployments, training activities, presentations, and commercial engagements, and has acquired distinctiveness through such use. According to the Complainant, MAESTRO4POLICE has become a distinctive identifier that relevant consumers and institutional users associate exclusively with the Complainant’s goods and services. The Complainant maintains that the evidence attached to the Complaint demonstrates that MAESTRO4POLICE has acquired distinctiveness through real-world deployment, media recognition, and identification by third parties as a product and service of the Complainant, well prior to the present dispute, and that independent press coverage confirms public association of the MAESTRO4POLICE name with the Complainant and its solutions, including adoption by municipal police authorities. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAESTRO4POLICE trademark, because it differs from it only by the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which is technically required for domain name registration and is irrelevant when assessing identity or confusing similarity under the Policy. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it is not the owner of the MAESTRO4POLICE trademark and has never acquired any trademark rights in this designation. The Complainant states that the Respondent has not been authorised to register the disputed domain name in its own name, and registered it solely in the context of a contractual collaboration with the Complainant, during which the Respondent acted as a technical collaborator. 1 The Complainant maintains that the registration of the disputed domain name was carried out on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the Complainant and the MAESTRO4POLICE project, and not as part of an independent business or branding activity of the Respondent. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it has not used it in connection with 1 The Complainant has not submitted any contractual documents between the Parties, save for a brief excerpt of a contract which bears no title and which was identified by the Respondent as “PLATFORM CO-DEVELOPMENT & EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT”. page 3 a bona fide offering of goods or services independently of the Complainant, and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that following the deterioration of the contractual relationship between the Parties, the Respondent retained control of the disputed domain name without legal or contractual justification and in direct conflict with the Complainant’s rights, thereby negating any possible claim to rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to it, at the time of registration, the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s MAESTRO4POLICE mark, business, and rights, as the disputed domain name was registered during a contractual collaboration exclusively for project-related technical purposes. The Complainant notes that the Respondent was directly involved in the MAESTRO4POLICE project and acted within a contractual framework with the Complainant. The Complainant adds that, during this contractual collaboration, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, allegedly for project-related technical support and digital presence purposes only. The Complainant points out that the Respondent has retained control of the disputed domain name following the breakdown of the contractual relationship and has used such control as leverage in a broader contractual and financial dispute with the Complainant. The Complainant notes that the Respondent retained exclusive administrative control of the disputed domain name through its own Cloudflare account, including DNS configuration, email routing, and security management, thereby exercising de facto control over a domain name corresponding exclusively to the Complainant’s brand. The Complainant states that the Respondent placed the disputed domain name into “maintenance mode”, effectively disabling public access to the associated website without any legitimate technical or operational justification, and conditioned the restoration or transfer of the disputed domain name upon the payment of fees and alleged expenses (despite acknowledging that the disputed domain name was registered solely for project purposes), exceeding any reasonable out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain name itself. The Complainant states that the Respondent’s continued control of the disputed domain name disrupts the Complainant’s business and interferes with its ability to reflect its trademark in a corresponding domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant has failed to establish any rights in the alleged unregistered trademark, as it has not demonstrated that it has acquired distinctiveness through long-standing use so as to constitute a source identifier associated by consumers or users with the Complainant’s goods or services. According to the Respondent, the Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence regarding the volume of sales under the alleged mark and the period during which such sales occurred, the nature and extent of advertising activities undertaken in connection with the mark, the degree of actual recognition among the relevant consuming public, or any consumer surveys or independent market evidence. The Respondent submits that, with a PLATFORM CO-DEVELOPMENT & EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT dated April 4, 2024 between its company and the Complainant, the Parties agreed to design and implement the MAESTRO programme, and paragraph D of the preamble to this agreement states: “The Parties have assessed and wish to form a strategic collaboration to co-develop the Platform, based on the version (‘Version 2’) already developed by the Licensor, and mutually thereafter commercially exploit the Platform through its licensing to third-party clients in Greece.” The Respondent adds that with Clause 7 of the same agreement, the Parties agreed that the agreement does not transfer intellectual property rights. According to the Respondent, the agreement does not provide that all intellectual property rights which may be acquired after its execution (including the disputed domain name) belong to, or must be transferred to, the Complainant. The Respondent states that under Cypriot law (allegedly the governing law of the parties’ agreement), intellectual property rights arise upon creation and vest in their creator. The Respondent adds that Clause 7.1 does not impose any obligation upon the Respondent to transfer intellectual property rights created after the execution of the agreement to the Complainant, nor does it provide for the reverse. page 4 The Respondent maintains that the existence of a bona fide contractual framework between the Parties is fatal to the Complainant’s attempt to characterise the disputed domain name registration as illegitimate. According to the Respondent, where a domain name is registered in the context of an ongoing commercial relationship and consistent with the parties’ contractual arrangements, panels have repeatedly held that such circumstances are incompatible with a finding that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent maintains that, as the creation and registration of the disputed domain name postdate the Parties’ agreement, it constitutes the lawful property of the Respondent, and no obligation arises for its transfer to the Complainant. In the Respondent’s view, pursuant to the governing law of the agreement, the person who acquires intellectual property rights after the execution of the agreement is their lawful owner, as the parties agreed under Clause 7.1. The Respondent claims that the Complainant attempts to rewrite the agreement ex post facto. The Respondent rejects the allegation that the disputed domain name was registered in the name of, or on behalf of, the Complainant. It notes that, on various occasions, the Parties jointly participated in exhibitions and events promoting MAESTRO, and the platform was not exclusively associated with the Complainant, but also with the Respondent. The Respondent also notes that in the context of developing the MAESTRO platform, it developed the dedicated website at the disputed domain name for the specialised MAESTRO4POLICE project. The Respondent states that within the framework of this activity, and pursuant to the Parties’ cooperation, it registered the disputed domain name and developed the associated project website, implementing and managing corporate email services, and providing overall technical support for the digital infrastructure, all of which was done lawfully and with every right to do so. According to the Respondent, the above demonstrates that the disputed domain name was registered and used in good faith and fairly, without any intent for commercial exploitation and without any attempt to mislead consumers or tarnish the mark forming the subject of this dispute. The Respondent states that it granted the Complainant full and unrestricted administrative access to the disputed domain name through the Cloudflare platform. The Respondent submits that, at its core, the present dispute is contractual in nature, as the Parties disagree on the interpretation and scope of intellectual property rights arising from their agreement, and such matters fall properly within the jurisdiction of national courts. According to the Respondent, the UDRP was designed to address clear cases of cybersquatting, and not complex commercial disputes between business partners. The Respondent submits that there are no circumstances in the present case indicating that it has unfairly exploited or otherwise abused the alleged rights which the Complainant claims arise from the MAESTRO4POLICE mark. The Respondent states that it did not register the disputed domain name for the primary purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to any competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration or for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, and that the Respondent is not intentionally attempting, through use of the disputed domain name, to attract users for commercial gain. The Respondent notes that the website at the disputed domain name is currently under construction. The Respondent denies that it has wrongfully retained control over the disputed domain name, and states that it granted the Complainant full and unrestricted administrative access to it via the Cloudflare platform. The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name is not being used to obtain any improper advantage against the Complainant. 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. page 5 The Complainant claims that it has unregistered trademark rights in the MAESTRO4POLICE trademark. According to it, these rights have arisen as a result of continuous and substantial use of the trademark in commerce prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and MAESTRO4POLICE has become a distinctive identifier that relevant consumers and institutional users associate exclusively with the Complainant’s goods and services. As discussed in section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of the use of the mark (which may include social media presence and engagement), (ii) the amount of sales under the mark and during which time period, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark – including evidence of expenditures over a relevant time period, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry such as trade and professional associations, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. The Complainant has provided none of these. The only evidence submitted by the Complainant in support of its claims of having unregistered trademark rights consists of two online publications and of the description of the MAESTRO4POLICE platform that is posted on the Complainant’s own website. The first of them, dated June 23, 2025, was published on the website Securitymanager.gr under the title “IANUS Technologies – Technological Innovation at the Service of Defense and Homeland Security”. 2 This publication appears to be an advertisement made by the Complainant for its activities, as also apparent from its description provided by the Complainant (“MAESTRO4POLICE posted in a security magazine (23 June 2025)”). The publication mentions that one of its products is “MAESTRO4Police – Smart Incident Management for Law Enforcement Software developed for the Police Services with modern and smart digital tools for better response, aiming at speed of response and citizen safety” (machine translation from Greek). The second publication is from the Philenews.com website and is dated December 1, 2025. This publication has the title “Defense Industry: The Police in Egaleo adopted the crisis management system of the Cypriot company IANUS Technologies”, 3 and states that “For more effective management of missions and incidents, members of the Municipal Police in Egaleo will now use the MAESTRO4Police system, which was developed by the Cypriot company IANUS Technologies” (machine translation from Greek). As noted above, the Complainant also refers to the content of its own website. 4 The Panel visited the Wayback Machine archives of the Complainant’s website, and the earliest archived copy of it is dated October 7, 2025. 5 These three publications provide no information about the duration of the use of the MAESTRO4POLICE trademark, the amount of sales under it in any time period, the nature and extent of advertising using the trademark, or about the degree of its actual public recognition, although it appears that the Complainant currently markets its platform under this brand. The evidence provided in the case is therefore arguably insufficient to establish that the Complainant has made continuous and substantial use of the MAESTRO4POLICE trademark in commerce such that this trademark has become a distinctive identifier that relevant consumers and institutional users associate exclusively with the Complainant’s goods and services. Considering however that the Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, it is unnecessary to make a definitive finding under the first element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Since the Complainant has failed to establish the third element of the Policy, the Panel determines that there is no need to address the second element of the Policy. 2 “https://www.securitymanager.gr/ianus-technologies-technologiki-kainotomia-stin-ypiresia-tis -amynas-kai-esoterikis-asfaleias/” 3 “https://www.philenews.com/oikonomia/epicheiriseis/article/1652139/amintiki-viomichania-i-astinomia-sto-egaleo-iiothetise-to-sistima- diachirisis-kriseon-tis -kipriakis-ianus-technologies/” 4 “https://ianus-technologies.com/maestro4police/” 5 “https://web.archive.org/web/20251007001001/https://ianus-technologies.com/maestro4police/” page 6 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It appears from the Parties’ submissions and the limited available evidence that they have been involved in a contractual cooperation for the development of the MAESTRO4POLICE digital platform, and that the registration of the disputed domain name was made further to that contractual framework and with the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. Their cooperation was terminated, and the Parties dispute whether the Respondent was entitled to register the disputed domain name in its own name, as well as the Respondent’s role in those arrangements. The Panel considers that the evidentiary record, together with the contractual nature of the dispute and the Parties’ competing interpretations, does not support a conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. For this reason, the Complaint must fail. The Panel also notes that the Parties’ submissions suggest that the present dispute is not limited to the disputed domain name, but that the disputed domain name forms part of a broader contractual dispute between the Parties. As such, the Panel considers that it would be more appropriately suited to determination before a court of competent jurisdiction. See Royal Life Saving Society, Alberta and Northwest Territories Branch v. Karina Renaud, WIPO Case No. D2022-0547, and section 4.14.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The Panel’s findings in this proceeding are without prejudice to the outcome of any future legal proceedings between the Parties. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: March 20, 2026

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