Controlunion.mom

The timeline behind controlunion.mom

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 P.S.O. Beheer B.V. v. GABRIEL BACCARO, moremore ltd Case No. D2026-2679 1. The Parties The Complainant is P.S.O. Beheer B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Ploum, Netherlands (Kingdom of the). The Respondent is GABRIEL BACCARO, moremore ltd, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <controlunion.mom> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 19, 2026. On June 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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/See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 19, 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 the same date. 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2026. The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 headquartered in Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Kingdom of the). It is a proprietor of the trademarks of the Royal Peterson Control Union Group (“Control Union”), which has since 1920 been doing business in the commodity and supply chain sector, providing a comprehensive range of services, including testing, inspection and certification, as well as logistics, collateral management and risk management services. Control Union has offices, operations, and laboratories in more than 80 countries, with 5,000 employees. The Complainant has registered CONTROL UNION trademarks, such as: - Benelux Trademark Registration No. 1479182 for CONTROL UNION, registered on February 20, 2023; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00801190819 for CONTROL UNION, registered on December 3, 2014; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1190819 for CONTROL UNION, registered on August 7, 2013. The disputed domain name was registered on May 5, 2026. While the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, the Complainant provided evidence that an email message requesting payment to a bank account was sent to one of the Complainant’s clients from the following email account associated with the disputed domain name: [...]@controlunion.mom. Three more email addresses configured with the disputed domain name were found copied to this email. In addition, according to the Complainant, among others, the business name and business address used in this email belong to the Complainant, which maintains a US office at that exact address, and the website referenced in the email signature also belongs to 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the disputed 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy, since it consists of the Complainant’s CONTROL UNION mark. Panels have disregarded the existence of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), including a new gTLD such as “.mom” in the disputed domain name, in determining the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. 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 with the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. 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 Complainant showed that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to send (at least one) fraudulent email to the Complainant’s client, pretending to be the Complainant by using its name and contact information, and asking for payment. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a 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 a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s group has been, since 1930, doing business in commodity and supply chain sector and has, at present, offices, operations and laboratories in more than 80 countries, with 5,000 employees. page 4 The Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, given the longstanding reputation of both the Complainant and the trademark, and also considering the subsequent use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s aim in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users to an online location for potential gain by taking unfair advantage of and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark. With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, the Panel notes that a phishing email was sent from the email account associated with the disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegitimate activity by impersonating the Complainant constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Accordingly, 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 disputed domain name <controlunion.mom> be transferred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: July 21, 2026

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