Nachhilfeteam.net

The timeline behind nachhilfeteam.net

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 Frank Olschewski v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc Case No. D2026-2022 1. The Parties The Complainant is Frank Olschewski, Germany, self-represented. The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nachhilfeteam.net> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 11, 2026. On May 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 15, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown registrant / redacted registrant of nachhilfeteam.net) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 18, 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 amended Complaint on June 5, 2026. 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 June 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 29, 2026. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 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 an individual who owns and operates a German tutoring business under the name “Nachhilfe-Team.net.“ The business is operated through the domain name <nachhilfe-team.net>. According to the Complaint, he has used the name “Nachhilfe-Team” and the domain name <nachhilfe-team.net> publicly since at least 2017. The Complainant submitted web archive screenshots showing active use of his domain name displaying his trademark in 2021. The Complainant is the owner of the German Trademark Registration for comprising the wording “NACHHILFE-TEAM.NET NACHHILFE, DIE ANKOMMT.”, together with graphic elements, registered on December 2, 2025, under No. 302025250016 (“the “Trademark”). The Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2023. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name has been used to redirect Internet users through intermediary domains to fake CAPTCHA or “allow notifications” pages. In support of these allegations, the Complainant has submitted HAR logs, screenshots, and correspondence from third-party providers. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name redirects to a browser warning page. 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 Domain Name. First, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 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 the Domain Name; and (iii)the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. 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. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In some cases, such assessment may also entail a more holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name to ascertain confusing similarity. This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trademark law. Therefore, questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the date they were acquired, the geographical location of the respective parties, and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage; such matters, if relevant, may be considered under the other elements of the Policy. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Although each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In the present case, the Complainant holds valid registration for the Trademark, which consists of the wording “NACHHILFE-TEAM.NET NACHHILFE, DIE ANKOMMT”, together with graphic elements. The Domain Name includes the dominant feature of the Trademark, namely the wording “NACHHILFE- TEAM.NET”. The Domain Name differs from this portion of the Complainant’s Trademark only by the omission of a hyphen between the elements “nachhilfe” and “team”. The omission of such punctuation does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the 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. Usually, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. However, the Panel notes the composition of the dominant element of the Trademark and notes that the combination of the gTLD and the second-level portion of the Domain Name adds to the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Trademark. See section 1.11.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. Thus, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. 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 Name. A right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name may be established, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, if the Panel finds any of the following circumstances: page 4 (i) that the Respondent has used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the notice of the dispute; or (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, 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 Name 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 Panel considers that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. In particular, there is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating the Trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has not established that he has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or corresponding names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name; or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the Complainant’s Trademark. On the contrary, the Complainant shows that the Domain Name has been used to redirect Internet users through intermediary domains to deceptive landing pages displaying fake CAPTCHA or “allow notifications” prompts. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a webpage triggering a browser security warning. The Panel finds that such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under the Policy. Given the above, there are no circumstances in evidence which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case record that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. In sum, the Panel finds 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 Name has been registered and is 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. page 5 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. The Panel notes that in the present case the Respondent had registered the Domain Name before the Complainant’s Trademark was registered. In the present case, the Complainant asserts that it had publicly used the name “Nachhilfe-Team” and the domain name <nachhilfe-team.net> since at least 2017, well before the registration of the Domain Name. The Panel is satisfied that, by the time the Domain Name was registered, the Complainant had established unregistered rights in the name “Nachhilfe-Team.net”, and that the Respondent more likely than not had the Complainant and its business in mind when registering the Domain Name. Moreover, as indicated by the Complainant, the Domain Name has been used to divert Internet users expecting to reach the Complainant's website to third-party webpages through a chain of redirects. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, those redirects led to deceptive fake CAPTCHA or “allow notifications” pages. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a webpage triggering a browser security warning. Such use supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel thus finds, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of a response, that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the associated website or other online location to which the Domain Name resolves. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Name <nachhilfeteam.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: July 22, 2026

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