Nilfiskcfm.com

The timeline behind nilfiskcfm.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 Nilfisk A/S v. Apriandi M. Case No. D2026-3095 1. The Parties Complainant is Nilfisk A/S, Denmark, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. Respondent is Apriandi M., Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nilfiskcfm.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NorthNames, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2026. On July 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. Following reminders and a renewed request, on August 7, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the registrant and contact details. The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 3, 2026. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 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 Founded in 1906, Complainant Nilfisk A/S, a professional cleaning equipment company, currently employs around 4,500 people, operates 5 manufacturing sites across the US, Mexico, Hungary, Italy, and China, and generated a revenue of around EUR 996 million in 2025. Complainant operates a dedicated industrial vacuum cleaner business under the NILFISK CFM brand, following its acquisition of the Italian industrial vacuum manufacturer CFM. Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks globally, including: - European Union registered trademark number 001023878 for the CFM design mark, registered in 1991; - International trademark registration number 813249 for the NILFISK word mark, registered in 2005; and - United States trademark registration numbers 3117312 (Serial No. 79007344) for the NILFISK word mark, registered in 2004, and number 5333076 (Serial No. 87205959) for the NILFISK word mark, registered in 2017. Complainant also owns numerous domain names with the NILFISK mark, such as <nilfisk.com>, registered in 1997, and <nilfisk.us>, registered in 2002, which Complainant uses to inform customers about its products and services, and as an online e-commerce platform. The Domain Name <nilfiskcfm.com> was formerly registered to, and used by, the Complainant itself as the official website of its Industrial Vacuum Division (“Nilfisk CFM”), before its registration lapsed on or around December 20, 2025. Following the lapse, the Domain Name was re-registered on or around December 25, 2025, and currently resolves to a website which duplicates the content of the Complainant’s former official website, purportedly offering for sale Complainant’s industrial vacuum products, accessories, and replacement parts, in the name of “Nilfisk”. On June 26, 2026, Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent and the Registrar, along with numerous reminders. However, no response was received. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights for NILFISK and that the Domain Name is a full recreation of its NILFISK and CFM marks. Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known NILFISK products. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. Specifically, Complainant asserts that the Domain Name currently consists of an identical recreation of the NILFISK and CFM trademarks and offers identical goods and services. In this way, Respondent is attempting to create confusion by using Complainant’s trademarks, to attract users looking for Complainant’s products to Respondent’s website and profit from it. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the NILFISK and CFM trademarks, as noted above. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the NILFISK and CFM trademarks. With Complainant’s rights in the NILFISK and CFM trademarks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it was registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NILFISK and CFM trademarks. The NILFISK and CFM trademarks are recognizable in the Domain Name. The combination of Complainant’s NILFISK mark with its CFM mark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the NILFISK and CFM trademarks. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the NILFISK and CFM trademarks and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or page 4 licensed to use the NILFISK and CFM trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademark. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the NILFISK and CFM trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name directs to a website that duplicates the content of Complainant’s former website, prominently displaying Complainant’s trademarks throughout the site and offering what are allegedly Complainant’s products for sale. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the NILFISK and CFM trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also established and known; indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s NILFISK and CFM trademarks and related products are known and recognized for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, and also noting the use analysis below, Respondent was clearly aware of the NILFISK and CFM trademarks when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. page 5 Moreover, the Domain Name’s inclusion of Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety, with the combination of Complainant’s NILFISK mark with its CFM mark in the Domain Name as discussed above, is intended to confuse Internet users into believing that the Domain Name belongs to Complainant. Such adoption of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name serves to pass off a website as being associated with a trademark owner, where individuals or entities seek to pass themselves off as companies or entities in the hopes of seeking an advantage, from current or potential clients of those companies or entities. In addition, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, as discussed above, is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s website reproduces Complainant’s former official website dedicated to its United States Industrial Vacuum Division under the name “Nilfisk”, including the Complainant’s logo and trademarks, official images and product categories, as well as the Complainant’s own contact details and copyright notice. It also appears to invite Internet users to make contact, by providing personal details, such as name, company, job title, phone, email, and postal code. UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to trade off goodwill in a complainant’s well-known trademark, as here, constitutes bad faith. See Philip Morris Products S.A. v. homn mohmoodi, WIPO Case No. D2022-4158. Moreover, such use of the Domain Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. Finally, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a Response and considers such factor further supports that Respondent’s registration and use constitutes bad faith. In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the NILFISK and CFM trademarks, and the composition and use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name <nilfiskcfm.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: September 21 2026

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