Genetecportal.com, Genetechbg.com

The timeline behind genetecportal.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION GENETEC INC. v. Sunucu Al / www sunucu al / Vergil Özgür / N/A Claim Number: FA2606002224959 PARTIES Complainant is GENETEC INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Jules Gaudin of ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is Sunucu Al / www sunucu al / Vergil Özgür / N/A ("Respondent"), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com>, registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026. On June 8, 2026, Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> domain names are registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On June 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@genetecportal.com and postmaster@genetechbg.com. Also on June 16, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant has alleged that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity. Complainant argues that both domain names were registered through the same Registrar, Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S., using the same backend platform (apiname.com). Both domains target the Complainant's GENETEC trademark. <genetecportal.com> incorporates the mark exactly with a functional term ("portal"). <genetechbg.com> also incorporates the exact mark with a modifier ("hbg"). The contact information provided for both registrants is materially deficient and follows an identical pattern of obfuscation. The postal address information disclosed by the Registrar for both registrants is incomplete in an identical manner: each provides only a city name ("Mersin" for Sunucu Al and "İstanbul" for Vergil Özgür) without any street name, street number, or other specific location information that would allow for meaningful identification of the registrant. In addition, taking into account that no timely Response has been received, the Panel finds support for accepting the Complaint filed in respect of all the domain names in dispute. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1- Complainant, Genetec Inc. is a global leader in unified physical security software and public safety solutions, which operates globally in over 159 countries, employing more than 2,300 people and generating estimated annual revenues between $500 million and $1 billion CAD. 2- Complainant provides essential video surveillance, access control, and license plate recognition technologies to protect public sector agencies, large enterprises, and critical assets worldwide. 3- Complaint owns trademarks registrations for GENETEC since at least 2004 and also unregistered (common law) trademark rights since 1997, which has been used over the last decades. 4- Complainant owns the domain name <genetec.com> since 2000. 5- The disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark; they include the entirety of a trademark along with generic terms "portal" (a descriptive term that evokes an online access point) and "hbg", along with the gTLD ".com". 6- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. 7- The disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Genetec Inc., owns trademark registrations for GENETEC for many years, which are used in connection with unified physical security software and public safety solutions and advertised on https://www.genetec.com. Respondent registered and is using the domain names <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the GENETEC mark through trademark registrations (Appendix 3) and use (Appendixes 4, 5 and 9). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the GENETEC mark, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names, <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's GENETEC trademark and domain name <genetec.com>. One includes the trademark (GENETEC) and Respondent only adds a generic term ("portal", which evokes an online access point) and the gTLD .com and the other includes the trademark GENETEC and the combination of letters "hbg" and the gTLD .com. The Panel concludes that the slight differences in the disputed domain names can lead the consumers into confusion about the products identified. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v. George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark). The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that GENETEC belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added generic terms or combination of letters and a gTLD. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). The Panel finds that the domain names are almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GENETEC mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> domain names. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). In this case, according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as Sunucu Al / www sunucu al / Vergil Özgür / N/A and Respondent has not submitted evidence on the contrary. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Further, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights on the disputed domain names. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain <genetecportal.com> is not a bona fide offering of goods (Appendix 10). The domain name resolves to a web page which mimics Complainant's site, includes the trademark and is addressed to the same Complainant's services. As regards <genetechbg.com>, the evidence submitted by Complainant shows that it does not lead to an active site (Appendix 10) and Respondent has not submitted evidence to prove a bona fide offering of goods with respect to it. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The domains registration by Respondent was done in 2023 and 2024 and, according to the information available on WHOIS (Appendix 2), it is more than 20 years after Complainant's registration of the domain name <genetec.com> (Appendix 5) and trademark registration (Appendix 3) and use (Appendixes 4, 5 and 9). The <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> domain names were registered by including the exact mark plus related generic terms and combination of letter, along with the gTLDs .com. In the Panel's point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain names was registered in bad faith. In addition, one of the disputed domain's homepage does not resolve to any active content (Appendix 10), which is also a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) ("Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use."). Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry, FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith."). The other disputed domain name resolves to a website that includes Complainant's trademark and offers the same services (Appendix 10). The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <genetecportal.com> and <genetechbg.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: July 16, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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