Omnicommedia-group.com

The timeline behind omnicommedia-group.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 Omnicom Group Inc v. Morgi Bentley, Glassdoor Case No. D2026-3418 1. The Parties Complainant is Omnicom Group Inc, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Morgi Bentley, Glassdoor, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <omnicommedia-group.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (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 4, 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 (Registrant Information Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to 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. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 3, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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 Complainant, together with its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively “Complainant”) is a multinational company based in the United States. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered advertising, public relations, and related services under the mark OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP. Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark. These include, among others, United States Registration No. 3,434,442 (registered May 27, 2008) and European Union Trade Mark No. 005928932 (registered May 2, 2008). The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2026. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it has successfully used its OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark for decades in connection with its advertising, public relations, and related services, with resulting recognition by major media outlets such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which has earned Complainant a spot in the Fortune Global 500 (#257 in 2025). Complainant further contends that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant's prior use and superior rights to the “fanciful” OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark, given Complainant’s “strong online presence” via Complainant’s websites accessible to consumers via <omnicommediagroup.com> (registered September 25, 2005) and <omnicommedia.com> (registered December 1, 2005), as well as Complainant’s wide global reach, with “over 40,000 clients across 70 jurisdictions” and a “combined revenue of USD 23.1 billion” in 2025. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates in full Complainant’s OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark, with the inclusion only of a non-source-identifying hyphen. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant's repeated cease and desist letters, dated April 24, 2026; May 5, 2026; and May 13, 2026. Complainant further contends that despite not linking the disputed domain name to an active webpage at this time, Respondent has set up MX records, which would likely be used to “defraud” consumers. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, with knowledge of Complainant’s superior rights, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark 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 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. Complainant has established rights to the mark incorporated in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not put forward any claims or evidence that would suggest rights or legitimate interests for purposes of the Policy. In addition, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. It is nevertheless well established that the passive holding of a domain name may not prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3, which notes that the “non-use of a domain name” does not necessarily negate a finding of bad faith. Rather, a panel must examine “the totality of the circumstances”, including, for example, whether a complainant has a well-known trademark, and whether a respondent conceals its identity and/or replies to the complaint. The Panel finds that Complainant has established prior rights in the distinctive OMNICOM MEDIA GROUP mark, as well as a fair degree of consumer exposure in the United States and globally. Moreover, the Panel notes the identical composition of the disputed domain name. Respondent did not submit any reply to Complainant’s contentions in these proceedings, nor to Complainant’s prior attempts to resolve this dispute. page 4 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 <omnicommedia-group.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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