Sttada.com

The timeline behind sttada.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 STADA Arzneimittel AG v. Capte Inc, Eldon Adams Case No. D2026-3028 1. The Parties The Complainant is STADA Arzneimittel AG, Germany, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, United States of America (“U.S.”). The Respondent is Capte Inc, Eldon Adams, U.S. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sttada.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 9, 2026. On July 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 9, 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 (User #d0cfb2fe Privacy / See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 21, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 21, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 11, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 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 a German pharmaceutical company which was established more than 130 years ago. It manufactures and sells pharmaceutical products in more than 100 countries. Its consumer healthcare brands include Nizoral, Zoflora, Grippostad, SNUP, Silomat, and Hirudoid. In the financial year 2025, the Complainant achieved group sales of EUR 4,296 million and, as of December 31, 2025, employed 11,749 people worldwide. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations consisting of or containing the mark STADA, including the following: - German trademark registration No. 662147 for STADA, registered on September 3, 1954; and - European Union trademark registration No. 000569194 for STADA, registered on April 16, 1999. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names incorporating its STADA trade mark, including <stada.com>, registered on December 13, 1999, and which is used for the Complainant’s website. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2026. The disputed domain name has been used in connection with business email addresses purporting to be sent by employees of the Complainant. In particular, emails were sent using the name of actual employees. The emails concerned, amongst other matters, an advance payment relating to a purchase order with one of the Complainant’s suppliers. On July 6, 2026, the supplier contacted the Complainant at its genuine <stada.com> email address to ask whether <sttada.com> belonged to the Complainant, noting that the matter appeared to raise a cybersecurity issue. 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: (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its STADA trade mark because it incorporates the trade mark in its entirety, merely repeating the letter “t”; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the STADA trade mark; the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in it; and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a business email compromise phishing scam impersonating the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the long history of the Complainant’s STADA trade mark and the Complainant’s significant presence and brand recognition, the Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of the Complainant when registering the disputed page 3 domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a business email compromise phishing scam impersonating the Complainant constitutes bad faith. Additionally, the Respondent has “engaged in a pattern of such conduct” under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy by registering not only the disputed domain name but also other domain names, in which he was ordered to transfer the domain names. 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 STADA trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name differs from the STADA trade mark only by the addition of another letter “t”. This obvious or intentional misspelling does not prevent the Complainant’s STADA trade mark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. The “.com” generic Top-Level Domain is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STADA trade mark in which it has rights. 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 Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its STADA trade mark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. page 4 The record further demonstrates that the disputed domain name has been used to create email addresses impersonating employees of the Complainant in communications with one of the Complainant’s suppliers concerning a purchase order and related payment. Such use is plainly not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegal or illegitimate activity, including phishing and identity theft, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. To the contrary, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant’s employees and engage with the Complainant’s supplier is fundamentally inconsistent with any claim to rights or legitimate interests. The Panel therefore finds that 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. It is clear from the record that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its STADA trade mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trade mark registrations substantially predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on April 28, 2026. More significantly, the disputed domain name incorporates a deliberate misspelling of the STADA trade mark and was used to create email addresses purporting to belong to actual employees of the Complainant. Emails sent from those addresses reproduced the names, positions, contact details, and other signature information of those employees and were directed to an existing supplier of the Complainant in the context of an ongoing commercial transaction. Such conduct demonstrates not merely knowledge of the Complainant and its STADA trade mark, but deliberate and specific targeting of the Complainant, its personnel, and its commercial relationships. The nature and sophistication of the impersonation excludes any plausible inference that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name independently, without reference to the Complainant and its trade mark. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, including phishing, identity theft, impersonation, or other forms of fraud is manifestly indicative of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant’s personnel in payment-related email correspondence with an existing supplier falls squarely within the type of abusive conduct contemplated by that section. The Complainant has also identified at least four previous UDRP proceedings in which domain names registered by the Respondent were ordered to be transferred under the Policy. In the circumstances, these prior proceedings provide further evidence of a pattern of abusive domain name registrations and reinforce the Panel’s conclusion as to the Respondent’s bad faith in the present case. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <sttada.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Francine Tan/ Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: August 25, 2026

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