Bluetab.sbs

The timeline behind bluetab.sbs

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 International Business Machines Corporation v. Tiger Runs Case No. D2026-1877 1. The Parties Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation, United States of America, represented internally. Respondent is Tiger Runs, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <bluetab.sbs> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2026. On May 1, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 1, 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 (John Doe, #475c918c Privacy, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 4, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 4, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 1, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on June 4, 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 Complainant was incorporated in 1911 and officially became International Business Machines in 1924. Complainant has been offering products and services in the information technology space ever since. Initially, these products included office and research equipment, including punch machines, calculating machines, clocks, and scales. IBM introduced IBM 70, its first large vacuum tube computer, in 1952, and has since continuously offered computer products and services, including computers, computer hardware, software, and programs. Since the 1980s, Complainant has been a leading innovator in the design and manufacture of many technology products including computer and computer hardware, software, and accessories. Complainant is one of the world’s leading technology and consulting organizations with a presence in over 175 countries through its wholly owned subsidiaries and with over 288,300 employees worldwide. Founded in 2005 and acquired by Complainant in 2021, Bluetab is a data solutions company that provides data-based and AI-enhanced strategies and solutions to enterprise customers. Bluetab solutions provide “on-premise data and analytics to hybrid multi-cloud data platforms using a combination of public cloud providers and technologies...” After Complainant’s lawful acquisition of Bluetab, the BLUETAB trademarks were assigned to Complainant. Complainant has since incorporated BLUETAB into Complainant’s IBM Consulting brand to extend its portfolio of data and hybrid cloud consulting services. Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations (collectively, “BLUETAB Mark”): European Union Registration No. 011529849 for BLUETAB registered on August 31, 2014 in international classes 9, 35, and 42; and United Kingdom Registration No. UK00911529849 for BLUETAB registered on August 31, 2014 in international classes 9, 35, and 42. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 24, 2026 and redirects to Complainant’s official website and is enrolled in an anonymized mail exchange (MX) allowing for the sending and receiving of email, and was used to send fraudulent recruitment emails and job offers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it was ranked the 13th most valuable global brand in 2025; the 16th most valuable global brand in 2024; the 17th most valuable global brand in 2023; and the 18th most valuable global brand in 2022 by BrandZ. Complainant was also ranked the 22nd best global brand in 2025; the 19th best global brand in 2024; and the 18th best global brand in 2023 and 2022 by Interbrand. Complainant further contends that it has devoted, and continues to devote, substantial resources toward maintaining and building these assets. In addition to its expenditures on product development, Complainant spent more than USD 8.3 billion on advanced research in 2025 and spent more than USD 7.4 billion on advanced research in 2024. The net result of these investments is manifest – Complainant’s trademark is synonymous with innovation and high quality in the field of information technology. page 3 Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the BLUETAB Mark and is confusingly similar to the BLUETAB Mark Complainant further contends that it has never licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLUETAB Mark in the Disputed Domain Name or in any other way. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is there any evidence of legitimate or fair use. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant submits that it was notified by three members of the public that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to send out fraudulent recruitment emails and job offers from the email address [...]@bluetab.sbs. Complainant further submits that the Disputed Domain Name itself resolves, without permission, to Complainant’s official Bluetab website at “www.buluetab.net/es”. Complainant owns numerous domain names for Bluetab, including without limitation: < bluetab.net> and <bluetab.com>. Such use by Respondent is an intentional ploy to mislead Internet users into thinking they are dealing with a Complainant- owned website or receiving legitimate employment offers from Bluetab, when they are not. Complainant alleges that Respondent poses a cybersecurity threat to Complainant because its associated IP address for the Disputed Domain Name has been linked to anonymization services and botnet command and control. Anonymization services can modify Internet Protocol (IP) packets and functions to hide the identity of a sender or to mask the origination of the computer system sending email, which is commonly referred to as “spoofing.” Complainant further alleges that the registration of a confusingly similar mark by an entity having no relationship with the owner of a well-known trademark is sufficient to show bad faith. Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the BLUETAB Mark in which Complainant has rights; ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and, page 4 iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of a trademark, here the BLUETAB Mark, prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the BLUETAB Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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 BLUETAB Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the BLUETAB Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BLUETAB Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.sbs”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the BLUETAB 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the BLUETAB Mark. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that page 5 Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as fraudulent impersonation, phishing, and spoofing, never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the BLUETAB Mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the BLUETAB Mark from reflecting the BLUETTAB Mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the BLUETAB Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as fraudulent impersonation, phishing, and spoofing constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 6 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 <bluetab.sbs> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2026

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