Mercado Libre, Inc. v Milton Rottman

WIPO Case No. D2025-0099

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Mercado Libre, Inc. v. Milton Rottman

Case No. D2025-0099

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mercado Libre, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Marval

O´Farrell & Mairal, Argentina.

The Respondent is Milton Rottman, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <melidolar.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2025. On January 13, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 14, 2025, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 15, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On January 27, 2025, the Complainant sent an email to the Center that it chose not to file an amendment to the Complaint.

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 the Respondent of the panel appointment.
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the

page 2

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2025. 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 Complainant is a technology company with its registered seat in the United States. It provides an e- commerce ecosystem which is particularly popular in Latin America. In 2024, the Complainant launched a cryptocurrency in the form of a stable coin named “Meli Dólar” with considerable media coverage.

The Complainant is the owner of the MELI DÓLAR trademark. While various of its trademark applications for various goods as protected in class 9.
are still pending, some of its trademark applications have already been registered in jurisdictions like Mexico,

Chile, Colombia, and Peru. Among others, the Complainant is the registered owner of the Mexican

The Respondent is reportedly located in Spain.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 21, 2024.

According to unrebutted screenshots in the case file provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to the website of a sales platform, where the disputed domain name was offered for sale to a price of USD 35,000.

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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center only received an email communication from the Respondent on January 17, 2025. In this brief email communication, the Respondent only raised some general questions concerning the UDRP procedure. Beyond this email communication, the Center received no further communication from the Respondent.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.

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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the MELI DÓLAR trademark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name without any additions. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is identical to the MELI DÓLAR mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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 3.0, section 2.1.

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. 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.

There is particularly no indication in the case file that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests therein. Furthermore, the Respondent’s intent to commercially benefit from the resale of the disputed domain name does not indicate any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In addition, the Panel considers that due to its identity with the MELI DÓLAR trademark of the Complainant, the composition of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview, version 3.0, section 2.5.1.

page 4

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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its MELI Complainant’s trademark registration and the media coverage of the launch of the MELI DÓLAR stable coin prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name, the Panel has no doubt that the Respondent deliberately chose the disputed domain name to target the Complainant and its trademark in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Complainant has provided undisputed evidence showing that the disputed domain name is offered for sale by the Respondent on a sales platform to a price most likely far beyond documented out-of-pocket expenses for the registration of the disputed domain name. In view of the Panel, this clearly demonstrates the Respondent’s opportunistic bad faith to utilize the disputed domain name for illegitimate commercial purpose.

All these circumstances are in view of the Panel sufficient evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel is convinced that this is even a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 <melidolar.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: March 19, 2025