Akernnutrition.com

The timeline behind akernnutrition.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 AKERN S.r.l. v. Dynadot Privacy Service, Dynadot, LLC Case No. D2026-2490 1. The Parties The Complainant is AKERN S.r.l., Italy, represented by Hoffmann Eitle S.R.L., Italy. The Respondent is Dynadot Privacy Service, Dynadot, LLC, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <akernnutrition.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 10, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 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 amended Complaint on June 10, 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 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 is an Italian company group founded in Florence (Tuscany, Italy) on December 15, 1980. From the date of its establishment, the Complainant developed into a biotech company, with a focus on medical technology. In 2022, the Complainant was acquired by the international group Pharmanutra S.p.A., which is involved in the manufacturing and distribution of nutritional supplements and medical devices. Having become part of this group, the Complainant began to develop a new business in food supplements and nutritional goods. The Complainant owns various word and figurative trademarks for the AKERN mark. The relevant trademark registrations include, inter alia, the European Union Trademark Registration No. 018163354 for AKERN in Classes 9, 10, 41, 42, and 44 registered on May 22, 2020, and the United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00918163354 for AKERN in Classes 9, 10, 41, 42, and 44 registered on May 22, 2020 (the “Complainant’s Trademark”). The Complainant also has pending European Union trademark applications, including, inter alia, trademark application No. 019340709 for AKERN NUTRITION filed on March 31, 2026 and published on June 2, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name was created on April 5, 2026, several years after the Complainant registered the Complainant’s Trademark. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to an inactive website. At the time of rendering of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising links that redirect to unrelated third- party websites (the “Respondent’s Website”). 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 contends that: (a) The Disputed Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s Trademark. The Complainant’s Trademark AKERN is reproduced in its entirety in the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of the gTLD “.com” is technically required thus such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Average consumers may be led to think that the Disputed Domain Name is somehow owned, controlled or endorsed by the Complainant. (b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to register and use the Complainant’s Trademark as a domain name. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship or affiliation with the Respondent. (c) The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is using it in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of or known the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of the term “nutrition” may be evidence of bad faith since the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of confusing Internet users into thinking that the Complainant was the owner of the Disputed Domain Name. Additionally, registering the Disputed Domain Name only five days after the filing of the Complainant’s identical European Union trademark page 3 AKERN NUTRITION confirms the Respondent’s bad faith. The Respondent has intentionally registered the Disputed Domain Name in a manner that confuses and misleads Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (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 by the Respondent in bad faith. 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the gTLD in this case “.com” may be disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the first element. Although the addition of another term (here, “nutrition”) may bear on the 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 Complainant’s Trademark 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 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. page 4 In the present case, the Respondent did not submit a Response. The fact that the Respondent did not submit a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-1437; and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). The Panel notes that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent has trademark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that the Respondent has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel further notes that the Complainant has provided no license or authorization of any kind to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Trademark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s Trademark. The Respondent would likely not have adopted the Complainant’s Trademark if not for the purpose of creating an impression that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with, or originates from, the Complainant. The reproduction of the Complainant’s Trademark and the use of the term “nutrition”, which directly relates to the Complainant’s business, lead to a risk of implied affiliation as the Disputed Domain Name effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Whilst the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host a parked page comprising PPC links, this does not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a “bona fide offering of goods or services” or from “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the Disputed Domain Name (see Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302). Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds 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 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 a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that it is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Name by the unaffiliated Respondent that would amount to good faith use, given that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety. The Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the various trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark that were put into use years before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. At the time of rendering of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page displaying PPC advertising links that redirect to unrelated third-party websites. While the intention to earn commercial revenue from PPC links is not in and of itself evidence of bad faith, previous panels have found that the use of a domain name deceptively similar to a complainant’s trademark to obtain click-through revenue supports a finding of bad faith use (see VKR Holding A/S v. Wu Yu, WIPO Case No. D2022-0744). Given that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety together a term “nutrition” which is related to the Complainant’s business, it is likely that the Respondent has an attempt to use the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. Further, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good page 5 faith use of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 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 <akernnutrition.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gabriela Kennedy/ Gabriela Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: July 20, 2026

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