Doliprane.lifestyle

The timeline behind doliprane.lifestyle

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 Opella Healthcare France SAS v. abdelali elmrabet Case No. D2026-3407 1. The Parties The Complainant is Opella Healthcare France SAS, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is abdelali elmrabet, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <doliprane.lifestyle> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2026. On August 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 6, 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 August 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 August 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 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 factual findings pertinent to the Decision in this case are that: (1) the Complainant produces a paracetamol-based pain relief medication under the trademark, DOLIPRANE; (2) the Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) trademark registration no. 018940197, registered on February 3, 2024, for the mark, DOLIPRANE; (3) the disputed domain name was registered on February 24, 2026; and (4) the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage which lacks content and is not otherwise in use. 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 asserts trademark rights in DOLIPRANE by reason of use and registration of that name and submits that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy since it simply combines the trademark with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.lifestyle”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because there is no relationship between the Parties and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark or register any domain name incorporating that mark. Further, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, and there has been no use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith being aware of the Complainant and its trademark and now passively holds the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant accordingly requests the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (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 It is the responsibility of the Panel to consider whether the requirements of the Policy have been met, regardless of the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a response. Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is accepted that a trademark registered with a national or pan-national trademark authority is evidence of trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy 1 . The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown trademark rights in DOLIPRANE since it provides proof of its registration of that mark with the EUIPO, a pan-national trademark registration agency 2 . The Panel notes that, for the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD can be disregarded 3 . For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and in keeping with a long line of UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark 4 . The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the Complainant may first make out a prima facie case, after which the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 5 . Notwithstanding the lack of a Response to the Complaint, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” The Respondent’s name does not suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Panel finds no other evidence that the Respondent might be known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant states that there is no association between the Parties and the Panel finds that there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights. Finally, there has been no use of the disputed domain name which might have indicated that the Respondent had rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 1 See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.1.1. 2 See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 3 See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 4 See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. 5 See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1; see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. page 4 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. In failing to file a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case 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 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances, which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. They are: “(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 Complaint states that “[t]he Disputed Domain Name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among internet users as to the source of the Disputed Domain Name, and thus, the Disputed Domain Name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv), with no good faith use possible.” The Panel does not consider paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy apt since there is no evidence of use or of commercial gain. Similarly, the Panel does not consider any of subparagraphs 4(b)(i)-(ii i) appropriate. Accordingly, the Complaint must establish, as separate matters, registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. The Complainant operates in a hundred countries with 13 manufacturing sites and four science and innovation development centers. The reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that by 2026, the Complainant was well-known and that DOLIPRANE was one of its flagship products. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. There is no explanation why the Respondent might desire to register a domain name identical to a distinctive, arbitrary, trademark for a bona fide reason and so the Panel finds registration in bad faith. Further, whilst there has been no use of the disputed domain name, the notoriety of the trademark and the lack of any plausible good faith way in which the disputed domain name might be used by the Respondent brings the Respondent’s conduct directly under the rubric of “passive holding” in bad faith as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since. Looking at the totality of circumstances and noting the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy in this case 6 . 6 WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. page 5 The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final 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 <doliprane.lifestyle> be transferred to the Complainant. /Debrett G. Lyons/ Debrett G. Lyons Sole Panelist Date: September 28, 2026

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