Appcelonis.com

The timeline behind appcelonis.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 Celonis SE v. Matthew Roberts Case No. D2026-2291 1. The Parties The Complainant is Celonis SE, Germany, represented by Obhan Mason, Advocates and Patent Agents, India. The Respondent is Matthew Roberts, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <appcelonis.com> is registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 29, 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 (Unstoppable Privacy Service LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 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 3, 2026, and an amendment to the Complaint on June 4, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint and 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 June 4, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 28, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 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 The Complainant Celonis SE owns and operates an official website at “www.celonis.com”, through which it offers globally recognized process mining, process intelligence, and business execution management software solutions. The Complainant is a European company based in Munich, Germany. The Complainant has multiple trademark registrations in its name for the CELONIS mark, including CELONIS registration No. 5089755, registered on November 29, 2016 in classes 9, 35, 41, 42 in the US; CELONIS registration No. 2017/21225, registered on July 25, 2017 in class 9 in South Africa; CELONIS (figurative) registration No. 011318995, registered on March 20, 2013 in classes 9, 41, 42 in the European Union; and CELONIS International Registration No. 1397757 registered on July 24, 2017 in classes 9, 35, 41, 42 designating Australia, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russian Federation, and Singapore. The Complainant’s primary domain name, <celonis.com>, was registered on April 13, 2011. The disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2026, and resolves to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s address, offers similar services, and attempts to pass itself off as legitimately connected with the Complainant. 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. The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and inherently recognizable CELONIS trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the prefix “app”. The Complainant asserts that numerous UDRP panels have consistently held that where a complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of descriptive, generic, or non-distinctive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity The Complainant confirms that the Respondent is not sponsored by, affiliated with, or otherwise connected to the Complainant in any manner. Nor has the Complainant authorized, licensed, consented to, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the CELONIS trademarks in any capacity, including as part of a domain name, business name, online identifier, or otherwise. The Complainant says that it has never granted the Respondent permission to register or use any domain name incorporating its distinctive CELONIS trademark. Further, the Complainant says that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “celonis”, “appcelonis”, or the disputed domain name, nor has the Respondent acquired any trademark, trade name, service mark, or other rights in respect thereof. The Complainant says that the term “celonis” is an inherently distinctive and coined expression exclusively associated with the Complainant and its globally recognized enterprise software, process intelligence, and digital transformation business. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent does not possess any common law, statutory, or other priority rights in “celonis”, and that the disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2026, many page 3 years after the Complainant adopted and commenced extensive use of the CELONIS trademark, secured trademark registrations worldwide, and registered its primary domain name <celonis.com> in 2011. By the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Complainant says that it had already established substantial international goodwill and reputation in the CELONIS trademarks through extensive worldwide commercial use, promotion, advertising, and media recognition. The Complainant adds that there is no fair use or bona fide use of the disputed domain name as consumers would falsely think there is an affiliation with it. The nature and composition of the disputed domain name itself reinforce the absence of any rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant contends. Given the Complainant’s established reputation in enterprise software, process intelligence, and cloud-based technology services, it says that Internet users are likely to perceive the disputed domain name as an official domain name operated or authorized by the Complainant. Such misleading use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant contends. The Complainant adds that by incorporating its distinctive CELONIS trademark in its entirety within the disputed domain name, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar not only to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, but also to the Complainant’s primary domain name, <celonis.com>. The mere addition of the descriptive prefix “app” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, according to the Complainant, but, to the contrary, the addition of the term “app” heightens the likelihood of confusion by falsely suggesting that the disputed domain name relates to an official application, customer portal, software platform, cloud interface, or digital service associated with it. It is inconceivable, the Complainant contends, that the Respondent independently arrived at the expression “appcelonis” without awareness of the Complainant’s distinctive and internationally recognized CELONIS trademark, particularly given the coined and inherently distinctive nature of the mark, the Complainant’s longstanding international commercial presence, and the Complainant’s extensive online operations predating the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by many years. The Respondent’s bad faith is, according to the Complainant, further evidenced by the fact that the website associated with the disputed domain name reproduces and displays an address identical to the Complainant’s address. Such conduct is said to conclusively establish that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and intentionally sought to create a false impression of affiliation, association, sponsorship, or endorsement by the Complainant. The unauthorized use of the Complainant’s address cannot reasonably be regarded as coincidental or inadvertent, the Complainant says. Rather, it constitutes a deliberate attempt to impersonate or pass itself off as the Complainant to mislead Internet users, customers, business partners, investors, and members of the public into believing that the website associated with the disputed domain name is operated, authorized, or endorsed by the Complainant. The Respondent’s bad faith is further shown, the Complainant says, by the nature of the services offered through the disputed domain name, which appear to operate in a closely related technological and AI-driven commercial space. The Complainant says that upon its information and belief, the Respondent promotes an AI-powered recruiting and talent search platform utilizing large language model (“LLM”) technology, natural language search capabilities, and enterprise data solutions. Such services overlap with and closely relate to its enterprise technology, AI-enabled software, process intelligence, data analytics, and digital transformation ecosystem, the Complainant maintains. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s conduct disrupts the Complainant’s business and interferes with its ability to control its online presence, customer expectations, and brand identity. The disputed domain name creates a substantial risk that customers, prospective customers, business partners, investors, and members of the public may mistakenly associate the Respondent’s website and activities with the Complainant, the latter argues. Finally, the Complainant points out that UDRP panels have consistently held that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark, with knowledge of the complainant’s rights, constitutes strong evidence of bad faith. page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 the trademark CELONIS for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s CELONIS trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the prefix “app”. Numerous UDRP panels have consistently held that where a complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of the term “app” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, but the Panel finds the addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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 that 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. The Complainant has not authorized the use of its very distinctive trademark by incorporation into a domain name by the Respondent, and there is nothing before the Panel that indicates that the Respondent has prior rights to the term “celonis” which itself is highly distinctive. The Respondent is not known by “celonis”, “appcelonis” or anything similar. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered a domain name that incorporates in its entirety a distinctive trademark in which the Complainant has rights. That trademark was well established and used widely over a long period of time across multiple jurisdictions, so that it is very improbable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights in relation to the incorporated CELONIS trademark at the time of registration. The term CELONIS is distinctive and the incorporation of “app”, short for “application”, in the disputed domain name further indicates that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its rights at the time of registration. In any case, some straightforward searches would have revealed the Complainant’s rights in the CELONIS trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers services that are similar to those offered by the Complainant, and that shows the same address as the Complainant’s. Taken together with the fact thar the Respondent has registered a domain name that incorporates a trademark that is distinctive and well-reputed and to which it has no rights, the inescapable inference is that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, with a view to misleading Internet users to its own advantage. The Panel finds 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 <appcelonis.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /WiIliam A. Van Caenegem/ WiIliam A. Van Caenegem Sole Panelist Date: July 15, 2026

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