Cream-deluxe-spain.com

The timeline behind cream-deluxe-spain.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 Unityforce Global Pte. Limited v. Jahnvi Kapoor Case No. D2026-0892 1. The Parties 1.1 The Complainant is Unityforce Global Pte. Limited, Singapore, represented by FPS Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Germany. 1.2 The Respondent is Jahnvi Kapoor, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar 2.1 The disputed domain name <cream-deluxe-spain.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History 3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 2, 2026. 3.2 On March 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 2, 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 (Mustafa Grootveld STUDY AT HOME PRIVATE LIMITED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 5, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 10, 2026. 3.3 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”). 3.4 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2026. page 2 3.5 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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 4.1 The Complainant is, a limited liability company organised under the laws of, and with its legal seat in, Singapore. It uses the name “Cream Deluxe” in several countries for canisters of nitrous oxide intended for use in professional kitchens. It also promotes its products from a website operating from the domain name <cream-deluxe.com>. 4.2 The Complainant is the owner of two European Union registered trade marks that either comprise or incorporate the term Cream Deluxe. They are as follows: (i) European Union trade mark no. 018578234 for “Cream Deluxe” as a word mark with a filing date of October 14, 2021 and a registration date of January 27, 2022 in classes in 1 and 6; and (ii) European Union trade mark no. 018578228, for “Cream Deluxe” as a figurative mark with a filing date of October 14, 2021 and a registration date of January 29, 2022 in classes in 1 and 6 and which takes the following terms: 4.3 The Domain Name was registered on December 8, 2025. It was used subsequent to registration for a website that purports to sell products of the Complainant. That website also displayed the following text: “OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTOR Cream Deluxe Cobra Officiële España ... Why buy From The Official Cream Deluxe Tienda? Skip Amazon.res – Buy Direct for Quality & Safety. When you buy from the official Cream Deluxe tienda, you guarantee safety.” 4.4 This website appears to have ceased to operate as at the date of this decision. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 5.1 The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. 5.2 In this respect, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name comprises its mark and the geographical term “Spain” and that the website that operated under the Domain Name was a “clear replica” of the Complainant’s website, is being used to sell counterfeit product and this is “a case of identity fraud”. B. Respondent 5.3 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.1 It is generally 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 trade mark and the domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 6.2 The Complainant has shown that it has rights in registered trade marks for Cream Deluxe. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 6.3 The only sensible reading of the Domain Name is as the words “Cream Deluxe”, with the space between those two words replaced by a hyphen, combined with the word “Spain” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Accordingly, the entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the Domain Name and as a consequence that mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. 6.4 It follows that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Further, the addition of the word “Spain” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 6.5 The Panel, therefore, finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith Registration and Use 6.6 It is usual for panels under the Policy to consider the issues of rights or legitimate interests, and registration and use in bad faith, in turn. However, in this case it is more convenient to consider those issues together (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.15). 6.7 The reason for this is that the Complainant contends that the Domain Name has been registered to falsely impersonate it. If the Complainant is correct (or there is a false impersonation of someone connected with and authorised by the Complainant), not only would the Domain Name have been registered and held in bad faith, but the Respondent would have no right or legitimate interest in the same (see for example WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5.1). 6.8 There are a number of aspects of the short Complaint that suggest that the Complainant has overstated its case, or at least the Complaint has not been prepared with the care it could have been. First, the Complainant contends that the website that operated from the Domain Name is a replica of the Complainant’s website, when the material provided suggests that, although there are similarities, this is not really a replica. Second, the Complainant repeatedly contends that the products offered on the website that operated from the Domain Name were counterfeits. Maybe that is so, but there is no evidence or argument advanced to support that claim. This is precisely the sort of conclusory or unsupported allegation that is criticised as insufficient in section 2.13.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Parties to UDRP proceedings and their legal advisers are expected to have considered, and at least take into account, the language of the WIPO Overview, and this appears not to have happened in the case. 6.9 However, even if these aspects of the Complainant’s claims are disregarded, the Panel is satisfied that the allegation of impersonation is generally made out. First, the Domain Name itself inherently impersonates the Complainant (or someone authorised by the Complainant in Spain) in that it takes the form of a trade mark combined with a geographical term (see section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). Second, the Panel is satisfied that this impersonation is intended by, and further perpetuated by, the Respondent in the website that operated from the Domain Name. Although, that website does not replicate the Complainant’s site, it is offering for sale what purports to be the Complainant’s products and there are many similarities with the Complainant’s site, including the colour scheme adopted. More significantly, the Respondent clearly uses page 4 language that represents that it is the official distributor of the Complainant in Spain, when that statement is false. 6.10 It further follows that the operation of this website from the Domain Name falls within the scope of the example of circumstances evidencing bad faith registration and use set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 6.11 The Panel, therefore, finds that each of the second and third elements of the Policy have been established. 7. Decision 7.1 For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <cream-deluxe-spain.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Matthew S. Harris/ Matthew S. Harris Sole Panelist Date: April 17, 2026

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