Hms-nelworks.com

The timeline behind hms-nelworks.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 HMS Industrial Networks AB v. Steve Rodney Case No. D2026-4229 1. The Parties The Complainant is HMS Industrial Networks AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Steve Rodney, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hms-nelworks.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 September 21, 2026. On September 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 21, 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 (Privacy User #11149a11, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 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 amended Complaint on September 22, 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 September 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 14, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on October 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. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Swedish company which operates in the Industrial ICT field, providing advanced communication solutions that enable industrial equipment and machines to connect and exchange data seamlessly, and owns several trademark registrations for HMS worldwide, including the following: - European Union Trade Mark No. 019084413 for HMS and design, registered on April 19, 2025; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1861239 for HMS and design, registered on March 25, 2025, designating, among other jurisdictions, the United States. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website being “www.hms-networks.com”. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on September 8, 2026, and it does not resolve to an active website. However, the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has been used as part of a phishing and impersonation scheme targeting a customer of 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark HMS. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain page 3 name has been used as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme, targeting a customer of the Complainant. In light of the above, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any genuine business offering, but rather has attempted to create the false impression that the communications originated from the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark HMS is well known in the field of Industrial ICT. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme, sending scam emails from the email address “[...]@hms-nelworks.com”, by impersonating an employee of the Complainant, with the aim of demanding payment from a customer of the Complainant, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering other domain names which appear to target third party trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (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. 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 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here “nelworks” preceded by a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 It is also well-accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often-impossible 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. 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 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 disputed domain name has been used as part of a phishing and impersonation scheme targeting a customer of the Complainant, with the aim of demanding payment from that customer. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing/identity theft as well as impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Furthermore, the disputed domain name can be seen as consisting of a typo variation (misspelling referred to as typosquatting) of the Complainant’s principal domain name, <hms-networks.com>, the only difference being the substitution of the letter “t” in “networks” with the letter “l”. Such composition, absent any explanation from the Respondent, reinforces the finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the available record, 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, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark HMS in the field of Industrial ICT is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent more likely than not knew of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the disputed domain name was used to send scam emails, by impersonating an employee of the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing/identity theft as well as impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. page 5 Having reviewed the record the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name here constitute bad faith under the Policy. Based on the available record, 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 <hms-nelworks.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: October 15, 2026

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