Aiman-demircan.com, Aimandemircan.com, Denkanreiz.com

The timeline behind aiman-demircan.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Aiman Demircan v. Mohamed Remmo Case No. D2026-1193 1. The Parties The Complainant is Aiman Demircan, Switzerland, self-represented. The Respondent is Mohamed Remmo, Germany, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <aiman-demircan.com> (the “First Domain Name”), <aimandemircan.com> (the “Second Domain Name”), and <denkanreiz.com> (the “Third Domain Name”) (collectively referred to as the “ Domain Names”) are registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. United States of America (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2026, originally only in regard to the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name. On March 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name. On March 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response partially confirming the information provided for the Respondent as listed in the Complaint (“Rezk Ahmed Jörg Sebening” and/or “Mohamed Remmo”). The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 24, 2026, requesting the Complainant to cure formal deficiencies of the original Complaint. On March 28, 2026, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies as well as requesting the addition of the Third Domain Name into the dispute. On April 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Third Domain Name. On Apri 10, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response providing the same registrant and contact details as those for the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name. On April 13, 2026, the Center provided the Complainant with the registrant information as disclosed by the Registrar for the Third Domain Name. page 2 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 April 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on May 2, 2026. On May 4, 2026, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited Supplemental Filing to the Center. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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. On June 3, 2026, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 requesting further information from the Respondent regarding the alleged absence of any relationship with a prior registrant, the date and circumstances of acquisition of the Domain Names, and the reasons for registering the Domain Names corresponding to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel invited a submission from the Respondent, followed by comments from the Complainant. On June 6, 2026, the Respondent filed a Reply to Procedural Order No. 1. On June 7, 2026, the Complainant filed comments on the Respondent’s Reply to Procedural Order No. 1. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an entrepreneur, author, and online content creator who has operated publicly and commercially under his personal name “Aiman Demircan” since at least April 2022, including through book publications, social media activity, podcast appearances, and online business activities. The Complainant is the owner of the AIMAN DEMIRCAN and DENKANREIZ trademark registrations (collectively referred to as the “Trademarks”), including: - the European Union Trade Mark Registration for AIMAN DEMIRCAN (word trademark) No. 019250822, registered on January 10, 2026; - the Swiss Trademark Registration for AIMAN DEMIRCAN (word trademark) No. 840464, registered on December 1, 2025; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registration for DENKANREIZ (word trademark) No. 019251784, registered on January 11, 2026. The First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name were originally registered on September 16, 2023. The Third Domain Name was originally registered on March 13, 2024. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names were initially registered by a former collaborator acting in connection with the Complainant’s projects and business activities. According to the Complainant, the registrations were undertaken on the Complainant’s behalf or with knowledge of the Complainant’s commercial activities and branding. The Complainant further alleges that he was subsequently prevented from accessing and regaining control over the Domain Names and related domain services. The current registrant of the Domain Names is the Respondent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not an independent registrant, but rather a fictitious or third-party identity used in connection with the prior registration and control of the Domain Names. page 3 The Respondent denies these allegations and submits that he is a real and independently identifiable individual. The Respondent further contends that he independently acquired the Domain Names through a standard domain name acquisition process. The Respondent denies any relationship with the prior registrant and maintains that the acquisition formed part of ordinary domain investment activity. In response to Procedural Order No. 1, the Respondent provided information concerning his claimed acquisition of the Domain Names and referred to evidence reflecting his status as registrant as of September 8, 2025. The record further reflects that the Complainant sent various communications between October 2025 and January 2026 to the Respondent, including cease-and-desist correspondence, GDPR-related requests, and other inquiries concerning the Domain Names. According to the Complainant, no response was received to these communications. At the time of filing of the Complaint as well as at the date of this Decision, the Domain Names do not resolve to any active websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that he has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. First, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical to the Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant relies on the registered Trademarks AIMAN DEMIRCAN and DENKANREIZ, as well as alleged unregistered or common law trademark rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. In this regard, the Complainant relies on allegations including offers to sell the Domain Names, alleged concealment of registrant identity, registrar transfers following WhoIs-related notices, passive holding of the Domain Names, and communications sent between October 2025 and January 2026 concerning the Domain Names, which, according to the Complainant, remained unanswered. In his comments on the Respondent’s Reply to Procedural Order No. 1, the Complainant disputed the Respondent’s account of the acquisition of the Domain Names and the reasons advanced for their registration. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent’s explanations were unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and did not credibly explain the Respondent’s acquisition of all three Domain Names corresponding to the Complainant’s Trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. First, the Respondent argues that the Complainant has not established enforceable trademark rights against the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s registered trademarks postdate the original registrations of the Domain Names and that the asserted common law rights are insufficiently supported. page 4 Second, the Respondent submits that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In particular, the Respondent contends that the Domain Names were lawfully acquired as part of general domain investment activity, that the Domain Names have not been used deceptively or abusively, and that the Complaint improperly attributes the conduct of a prior registrant to the Respondent. Third, the Respondent denies that the Domain Names were registered or used in bad faith. The Respondent argues that no evidence connects him personally to the alleged misconduct attributed to a prior registrant. The Respondent further contends that he is a real and identifiable individual, that the transfer between registrars was routine, that passive holding alone does not establish bad faith, and that no evidence demonstrates targeting of the Complainant. In response to Procedural Order No. 1, the Respondent submitted further information concerning the circumstances of his alleged acquisition of the Domain Names, which he states were acquired through an auction process. The Respondent relied on evidence of his registrant status as of September 8, 2025, but acknowledged that no earlier documentary evidence of the acquisition was available. The Respondent further explained that he registered the Domain Names for reasons unrelated to the Complainant, asserting that the Third Domain Name was acquired because of the descriptive meaning of the term “denkanreiz”, while the registration of the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name incorporating the AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark was motivated by personal and familial associations. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Matters – Supplemental Filings On May 4, 2026, the Complainant filed an unsolicited submission responding to the Respondent’s assertions concerning the Respondent’s identity, acquisition of the Domain Names, and alleged independence from the prior registration history of the Domain Names. The Panel notes that the Rules provide for the submission of the Complaint by the Complainant and the Response by the Respondent. No express provision is made for supplemental filings by either Party, except in response to a deficiency notification or if requested by the Center or the Panel, as was the case with the Parties’ submissions in response to Procedural Order No. 1 issued by the Panel on June 3, 2026. Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. Paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case. UDRP panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some unforeseen or exceptional circumstance). See section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”). In the present case, the Panel considers it appropriate to admit the supplemental filing because it responds to factual assertions and documentary evidence first introduced in the Response, including assertions concerning the Respondent’s identity and the alleged acquisition of the Domain Names. The Panel is satisfied that these matters could not reasonably have been addressed in full in the original Complaint. In addition, the consideration of the supplemental filing will assist the Panel in resolving the Parties’ central dispute. Accordingly, the Panel accepts and has taken into consideration the Complainant’s supplemental filing in rendering this Decision. page 5 6.2. Substantive Matters – Three Elements Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows: (i) the Domain Names are 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 the Domain Names; and (iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”; some panels have also expressed this as an “on balance” standard. Under this standard, a party should demonstrate to a panel’s satisfaction that it is more likely than not that a claimed fact is true. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. As noted above, the Complainant holds valid registrations for the Trademarks. The First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name incorporate the AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark in its entirety, while the Third Domain Name incorporates the DENKANREIZ trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The First Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark only by the addition of a hyphen between the elements “aiman” and “demircan”. The addition of such punctuation does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the First Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. UDRP panels have consistently held that the presence or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. See Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathon D. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119. The Panel notes the Respondent’s argument that the Domain Names were registered prior to the registration dates of the Complainant’s Trademarks. However, for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the date of registration is not considered relevant to the first element test. This factor may however bear on the Panel’s further substantive determination under the second and third elements. See section 1.1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” in the Domain Names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Given the above, the Panel finds that the First Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark, the Second Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark, and the Third Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s DENKANREIZ trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 6 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. A right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names may be established, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, if the Panel finds any of the following circumstances: (i) that the Respondent has used or made preparations to use the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names, even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. The overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant. However, panels have recognized that proving that 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 in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In the present case, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names were originally registered in connection with the Complainant’s own projects, but were subsequently retained improperly. The Complainant further contends that the Domain Names have never been used for any bona fide offering of goods or services and instead have been passively held throughout the relevant period. The Complainant additionally relies on communications allegedly concerning the registration of the Domain Names, reimbursement of registration costs, and requests for payment in exchange for transfer of the Domain Names, although the Respondent denies that he was the original registrant of the Domain Names. The Respondent denies the Complainant’s allegations. The Respondent submits that he independently acquired the Domain Names through a standard domain acquisition process as part of ordinary domain investment activity. The Respondent further contends that he had no knowledge of the Complainant, the Complainant’s trademark rights, or any prior dispute concerning the Domain Names at the time of acquisition. The Respondent additionally denies any relationship with any prior registrant and submits that the Complainant has produced no direct evidence linking the Respondent to the conduct alleged in the Complaint. The Panel considers that the Respondent has not demonstrated any circumstances falling within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. In particular, the Respondent has not established that he has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or corresponding names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; that he has been commonly known by the Domain Names; or that he is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel also notes that the Respondent’s assertions that the Domain Names were acquired as part of ordinary domain investment activity and, in the case of the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name, for personal or family-related reasons, are not supported by evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Panel notes that, in certain circumstances, panels have held that domain name investment may be considered as amounting to legitimate interest on behalf of a respondent. However, noting the composition of the Domain Names here, reproducing an page 7 uncommon personal name in the case of the First and Second Domain Names identical to the Complainant’s name and mark, and, in the Panel’s view, an unusual combination of terms as to the Third Domain Name that also directly correspond to a mark of the Complainant, the Panel rather finds the Respondent’s explanation for the acquisition of the Domain Names unpersuasive and the circumstances rather point to targeting of the Complainant. In this regard, the Panel also notes that the Respondent has failed to provide key supporting evidence, such as direct evidence of the registration date of the Domain Names or evidence supporting any anticipated legitimate use of the Domain Names. In sum, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes, without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As noted above, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names were originally registered in connection with the Complainant’s own projects and were subsequently retained and controlled improperly. In support of this contention, the Complainant relies on WhatsApp communications allegedly exchanged with a prior registrant. The Complainant further relies on allegations concerning manipulation of DNS settings, inaccurate registrant information, registrar inquiries concerning WhoIs accuracy, and the transfer of the Domain Names following scrutiny relating to the Domain Names. The Complainant additionally contends that the Respondent is not an independent registrant, but rather a fictitious or third-party identity used in connection with the prior registration and control of the Domain Names. In this regard, the Complainant relies in particular on the timing of the transfers to the Respondent, the alleged absence of evidence concerning acquisition of the Domain Names, and the use of allegedly related registrant identities and contact details associated with the Domain Names and other related domain names not forming part of the present dispute. page 8 In comments submitted in response to the Respondent’s Reply to Procedural Order No. 1, the Complainant further contends that the Respondent failed to provide documentary evidence establishing the precise date and circumstances of acquisition of the Domain Names and that the explanations offered for the registration of the Domain Names are not credible and do not satisfactorily explain the Respondent’s acquisition of the Domain Names corresponding to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent denies these allegations and contends that he independently acquired the Domain Names through a standard domain acquisition process as part of ordinary domain investment activity. The Respondent further submits that he had no knowledge of the Complainant or any alleged trademark rights at the time of acquisition and denies any connection with the prior registrant or involvement in the conduct alleged by the Complainant. In response to Procedural Order No. 1, the Respondent reiterated that he has no relationship with any prior registrant of the Domain Names, relied on evidence showing his status as registrant as of September 8, 2025, and provided explanations for the registration of the Domain Names which, according to the Respondent, were unrelated to the Complainant or the Complainant’s trademark rights. In particular, the Respondent asserted that the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name reflected personal and family associations, including a claimed connection to his brother’s given name and a family nickname. The Panel notes that UDRP panels have consistently held that the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith. See section 3.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Accordingly, the circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s acquisition of the Domain Names are of particular relevance to the assessment under the third element of the Policy. In the present case, the Parties devote considerable attention to the question whether the Respondent is associated with the prior registrant of the Domain Names. However, the Panel does not consider it necessary to resolve that issue. Even assuming that the Respondent is an independent third party, the circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s acquisition and holding of the Domain Names support a finding of bad faith registration and use noting apparent targeting of the Complainant’s nascent trademark rights. In this regard, the Panel notes that the Domain Names correspond exactly to the Complainant’s identifiers, namely the AIMAN DEMIRCAN trademark and the DENKANREIZ trademark. The First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name consist of the Complainant’s personal name and trademark, used by the Complainant as early as April 2022, while the Third Domain Name corresponds to another of the Complainant’s brands. Although invited by Procedural Order No. 1 to provide information concerning the acquisition of the Domain Names, the Respondent did not provide documentary evidence establishing the precise date on which the Domain Names were acquired. Rather, the Respondent relied principally on evidence showing that he was recorded as registrant as of September 8, 2025. The absence of evidence concerning the actual acquisition of the Domain Names limits the weight that the Panel can attach to the Respondent’s account of the circumstances surrounding their acquisition. The Panel has also considered the Respondent’s explanation that the registration of the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name was motivated by personal and family considerations and that the Third Domain Name was acquired because of the descriptive nature of the term “denkanreiz”. However, the Panel does not find these explanations sufficiently supported by objective evidence, nor do they satisfactorily explain the acquisition of all three Domain Names corresponding to two distinct identifiers associated with the Complainant. The Panel further notes that the Domain Names have remained inactive. Considering the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’ s passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. page 9 From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the nature of the Domain Names corresponding exactly to identifiers associated with the Complainant, the absence of any active use or demonstrable preparations for a bona fide use, and the lack of a credible explanation with supporting evidence for their acquisition make it implausible that the Domain Names are being held for any purpose unrelated to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Names supports a finding of bad faith. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking The Respondent invited the Panel to consider whether a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking would be appropriate. In light of the Panel’s findings that the Complainant has established all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel finds no basis for such a finding. 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 Domain Names <aiman-demircan.com>, <aimandemircan.com>, and <denkanreiz.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: June 17, 2026

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