Benzbank.com

The timeline behind benzbank.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 Mercedes-Benz Group AG v. [Details Not Provided by Registrant] Case No. D2026-1065 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Germany, represented by Heumann Intellectual Property Law, Germany. The Respondent is [Details Not Provided by Registrant], 1 Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <benzbank.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 March 12, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 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 (Registration Private, GoDaddy.com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 17, 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 17, 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”). 1 The Panel notes that the Center contacted the Registrar on March 16, 2026, asking for the registrant’s name and address, and that the Registrar replied on the same day that “the user did not enter contacts for the name or address of the Registrant for benzbank.com”. The Registrar provided a registrant’s email, which was used for the purposes of notifying the Complaint. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communications to the Center on April 9, 2026. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 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 is an automobile manufacturer. It has used the mark MERCEDES-BENZ in connection with its goods and services for well over a century and enjoys the benefits of registration of the mark BENZ in a number of jurisdictions (see, e.g., European Union Trade Mark No. 000140087, registered on March 29, 2001). According to the WhoIs information, the disputed domain name <benzbank.com> was registered on September 12, 2024. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has not been used to offer goods or services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions. It sent a very brief email message to the Center following commencement of the proceedings denying ownership of the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 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. page 3 The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BENZ mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name <benzbank.com> incorporates the BENZ mark in its entirety together with the term “bank”. The addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. The BENZ mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BENZ mark and that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has not been used for any active website. The Panel finds that these assertions are, in this case, sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any response and has not provided evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the record indicating that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor that it is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The record supports the assertion that the mark BENZ is widely recognized as a reference to the Complainant and its MERCEDES-BENZ brand. Given the distinctiveness and global reputation of the BENZ mark, the Panel considers it implausible that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. Prior UDRP panels have consistently held that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated party may, by itself, be indicative of bad faith. The Panel notes the Complainant’s claim that, under the Complainant’s domain name <mercedes-benz.com>, the Complainant also offers financial services such as those of “Mercedes-Benz Bank”. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration and deliberately chose the disputed domain name to target that mark. The disputed domain name has not been used for an active website. However, the Panel finds that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith. In assessing passive holding, the Panel considers the totality of the circumstances, including the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark, the absence of any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the Respondent’s failure to submit a response. The Respondent’s communication on April 9, 2026, does not provide any reasonable explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes the Registrar’s communication that “the user did not enter contacts for the name or address of the Registrant for benzbank.com”. In the present case, the Complainant’s mark is highly distinctive and well known, and the Respondent has not submitted any plausible evidence of intended good faith use. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Complainant provides financial services, and the disputed domain name has a misleading nature, noting such composition would likely mislead Internet users into believing that it is associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. page 4 In these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 <benzbank.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: April 20, 2026

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