Alta-fiber.org

The timeline behind alta-fiber.org

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 Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. Tobias Flaitz, DomCollect International GmbH Case No. D2026-0482 1. The Parties The Complainant is Cincinnati Bell Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by FBT Gibbons LLP, United States. The Respondent is Tobias Flaitz, DomCollect International GmbH, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alta-fiber.org> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with IONOS SE (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 4, 2026. On February 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 31, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 April 30, 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 May 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 May 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 1, 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have provided a wide range of telecommunications products and services to residential and business customers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, United States, since 1873. On May 3, 2021, in connection with an expansion, the Complainant filed trademark applications for the mark ALTAFIBER for use in connection with its telecommunications products and services. On March 2, 2022, the Complainant announced that it changed its primary brand name to ALTAFIBER. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the ALTAFIBER, for example United States Trademark registration no. 6,881,221 (registered on October 18, 2022). The Complainant has spent time, money, and resources promoting its products and services under the ALTAFIBER mark. The Complainant has registered the domain name <altafiber.com> since 2021. The Domain Name was registered on May 23, 2025. The Complainant documents that the Domain Name has resolved to a webpage with telecom related links to third parties. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant documents registered trademark rights and argues its trademark is well known in the United States as identifying Complainant. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with a hyphen inserted. The addition of a hyphen does nothing to prevent confusion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is neither legitimate, nor good faith, use. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name was never legitimate or in good faith, as the Domain Name has consistently been used to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name documents that the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain through the creation of a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Domain Name has been used to host pay-per-click (PPC) links which advertised services competitive with those of the Complainant. The Respondent’s use of a privacy shield as concealment of identity provides a further inference of bad faith. The current passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. It is not possible to conceive of any good faith use of the Domain Name by the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent has set up MX-records that allow the Respondent to send and receive fraudulent emails. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has established rights in its trademark ALTAFIBER. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with a hyphen added in the middle. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant has satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name - as described above – is not bona fide, but rather evidence of bad faith, see below. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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 composition and use of the Domain Name, as well as the fame of the Complainant’s trademark, indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to host PPC links which advertised services in competition with the Complainant. page 4 The Domain Name appears to be registered to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 the Domain Name <alta-fiber.org> transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: June 4, 2026

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