Nederman-us.com

The timeline behind nederman-us.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 AB Ph. Nederman & Co. v. Malvin Toga Case No. D2026-1257 1. The Parties The Complainant is AB Ph. Nederman & Co., Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Malvin Toga, United States of America (“U.S.”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nederman-us.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2026. On March 24, 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 24, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 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 March 25, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal 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 Unif orm 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 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was April 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2026. The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is AB Ph. Nederman & Co., a Swedish company offering products and services in the f ield of air f iltration. It owns a number of trademark registrations f ormed with the name NEDERMAN, such as: Swedish trademark: NEDERMAN Reg. No. 214476, Registration Date: August 11, 1989 U.S. trademark: NEDERMAN, Reg. No. 1619418, Registration Date: October 30, 1990 European Union trademark: NEDERMAN, Reg No. 002506400, Registration Date: November 23, 2004 International trademark: NEDERMAN Reg. No. 1136197, Registration Date: July 19, 2012 as well as the domain names <nederman.com> and <nederman.us>, inter alia. The disputed domain name is <nederman-us.com>, it was registered on March 17, 2026. It does not resolve to any active web page. But the Respondent has used an email address using the disputed domain name to contact some of the Complainant’s business partners, using the Complainant’s employee’s name, their U.S. corporate address, the Complainant’s mark and trade name, as well as the indication of the Complainant’s official website in the signature of the email, mimicking original signatures from the Complainant’s email addresses. 5. Parties’ Contentions 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad f aith. In particular, the Complainant has substantiated that the disputed domain name was used f or phishing purposes, as the Respondent uses an email address formed with the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant. The Complainant requests the transf er of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith (paragraph (a)(iii)). 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 straightf orward 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. 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. Although the addition of other terms (here “us”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Based on the available record, 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 a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not make any bona f ide or legitimate noncommercial f air use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the disputed domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant, f or phishing purposes. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate activity, here impersonation/passing of f , likely f or phishing purposes, can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the available record, 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such active (“behind the scenes”) uses are considered distinct from the passive holding doctrine, and can include a range of bad faith activity or scams such as sending email, phishing, identity thef t, or malware distribution. Many such cases involve the respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information f rom prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad f aith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, which is a clear indication that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and had its trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. Evidence filed in support of the Complaint reflects that the disputed domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant, for phishing purposes. The Respondent has used an email address using the disputed domain name to correspond with third parties, using the Complainant’s employee’s name, their U.S. corporate address, the Complainant’s mark and trade name, as well as the indication of the Complainant’s official website in the signature of the email, mimicking original signatures from the Complainant’s email addresses This clearly demonstrates a use in bad f aith of the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <nederman-us.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: April 23, 2026

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