Ola-alma.com

The timeline behind ola-alma.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 Sofia Dinis Rocheta v. Jan Everno Case No. D2026-1500 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sofia Dinis Rocheta, Portugal, represented by Agata Bulha, Portugal. The Respondent is Jan Everno, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ola-alma.com> is registered with Catch Deleting Names LLC (United States) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2026. On April 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 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 (Perfect Privacy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 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 the same date. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 15, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2026. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Portuguese holistic therapies provider, owner of the Portuguese trademark registration No. 748475, for the OLÁ, ALMA. word and device trademark, filed on June 24, 2025, registered on October 3, 2025, in classes 3, 4, 16, 41 and 45 (Annex 2 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name was previously registered by the Complainant (Annex 4 to the Complainant) and had been used as the Complainant’s official website offering products and services relating to well-being and holistic therapies. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent seemingly in a “drop catching” procedure on November 16, 2025, and, presently, a fraud warning is displayed while trying to access it. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant asserts to own the registered OLÁ, ALMA, trademark covering goods and services relating to well-being, holistic therapies, personal development, and related lifestyle services. Under the Complainant’s view, the disputed domain name is identical or, at the very least, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, reproducing it entirely with a minor absence of the accent on the first letter “á” and the insertion of a hyphen. The Complainant further indicates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name given that (i) the Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use her OLÁ, ALMA, trademark or to register a domain name corresponding to it; (ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (iii) the Respondent has not ever been commonly known by the name “olá, alma”, and the disputed domain name corresponds exclusively to the Complainant’s trademark; and (iv) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name given that it has been parked in connection with a webpage displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertisements. Lastly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, given that there is no plausible reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to exploit the Complainant’s OLÁ, ALMA. trademark, attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Further indicatives of the Respondent’s bad faith are the PPC links available at the website that resolves from the disputed domain name, the concealment of the Respondent’s identity, and the opportunistic timing of the registration of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name. 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. 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 OLÁ, ALMA. mark is reproduced almost entirely within the disputed domain name, with the mere omission of the acute accent in the letter “á” and of the punctuation marks (“,” and “.”). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of a hyphen and the suppression of the acute accent in the first “á” and the omission of the punctuation marks may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that such changes do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first 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 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainant has made a prima facie case against the Respondent. The Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use her OLÁ, ALMA. trademark or to register a domain name corresponding to it. Also, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Although the Panel notes that the disputed domain name could be perceived as being comprised of dictionary terms (“olá” means “hello” and “alma” means “soul” in Portuguese language), the Panel considers that the combination of these terms is not common. The Respondent is in default, and the overall circumstances of the case indicate that the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark, was registered likely to trade off on the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.10.1. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name presently resolves to a fraud warning page, and panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. This case presents the following circumstances which indicate, under the balance of probabilities, bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: a) the composition of the disputed domain name consisting of the reproduction of the Complainant’s OLÁ, ALMA. trademark, and registration after the Complainant failed to renew its prior registration of the disputed domain name. As previous panels stated: “The Panel emphasizes that critical to its reasoning and its conclusion in this case is that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name through drop-catching. Registration of a domain name in that circumstance is not the same as “ordinary” registration of a domain name (i.e., registration of a domain name which is not held by another person immediately prior to registration). Where registration occurs through drop-catching, the registrant is objectively aware that another person held the registration immediately prior. This, in effect, puts the registrant on notice that another person (the immediately prior registrant) may have rights in a trademark to which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar. Where, as in this case, the drop-catching registrant fails to take any steps to determine if such rights exist, then the registrant is taking the risk that such rights do exist. Where such rights do exist, where the value of the domain name derives primarily from those rights, and where the registrant’s only meaningful use of the domain name is to offer it for sale, then the registrant is liable to be considered as having registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the person who has those rights”. (WIPO Case No. D2018-0540, Supermac’s (Holdings) Limited v. Domain Administrator, DomainMarket.com). The Panel notes that the Respondent is located in the United States and that there is no evident connection between the Respondent and the Portuguese selection of the terms “ola” and “alma” with no explanation as to its combination. If the Respondent would have resorted to Internet tools to establish its meaning prior to registering it, it seems likely that the Respondent would have noticed that it was almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark noting the use of OLÁ, ALMA. in Instagram and on other websites referring to the Complainant and its OLÁ, ALMA trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8. page 5 b) according to the Complainant the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website displaying PPC links, and presently browsers display fraud alerts when attempting to access the disputed domain name; c) the Respondent has not formally responded to this proceeding; and d) the Respondent retained a privacy protection service to conceal its identity. The Panel finds, under the above circumstances, taken together, that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <ola-alma.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2026

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