Alfalavalindonesia.com

The timeline behind alfalavalindonesia.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Alfa Laval Corporate AB v. Umar Taslim Case No. D2026-0875 1. The Parties The Complainant is Alf a Laval Corporate AB, Sweden, represented by Advokatbyrån Gulliksson AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Umar Taslim, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alfalavalindonesia.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (“unknown”) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 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 f iled an amended Complaint on the same date. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the Complaint satisfied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 24, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 is a Swedish company established in 1883 under a different name which was changed to the present name in 1963. It has been doing business in, among others, marine, environment, pharma, hygienic, f ood and energy sectors. The Complainant owns trademark registrations f or the ALFA LAVAL such as: - Swedish Trademark Registration No. 1900/06089 for ALFA LAVAL, registered on December 13, 1897; - United States Trademark Registration No. 76169716 for ALFA LAVAL, registered on February 3, 2004; and - European Union Trademark No. 018170847 f o r ALFA LAVAL, registered on June 24, 2020. The Complainant also owns multiple domain names incorporating its ALFA LAVAL mark, including <alf alaval.com> which has been used as its main online marketing portal. The disputed domain name was registered on February 5, 2026. It does not resolve to any active website or page. A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the f ollowing decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the f ollowing: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 Complainant’s ALFA LAVAL mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The additional term “indonesia” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” do not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity under the first element test. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 dif f icult 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward 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 notes the composition of the disputed domain name, which carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and thus, prevents a f inding of right or legitimate interests f or the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1 The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, noting the composition of the disputed domain name, the fact that the Complainant has been doing business under the ALFA LAVAL brand and has had such trademark registered f or several decades, the Panel finds it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s ALFA LAVAL trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on February 5, 2026. Theref ore, the Panel f inds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad f aith. page 4 With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad f aith, the Panels have f ound that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. In this case, noting the composition of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s failure to come f orward with an explanation f or the registration, the Panel f inds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith use under the Policy. The Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <alf alavalindonesia.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: April 8, 2026

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