Unico A/S v Robles Technology, Kingsley Robles

WIPO Case No. D2025-1272

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Unico A/S v. Robles Technology, Kingsley Robles

Case No. D2025-1272

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Unico A/S, Denmark, represented by Advokatfirmaet Rödstenen, Denmark.

The Respondent is Robles Technology, Kingsley Robles, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <unicoeas.com> is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 28, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 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 (The holder of the disputed domain name (which is currently unknown)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 1, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 2, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 22, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 27, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 following facts are undisputed.

The Complainant is a Danish automotive leasing company and its primary website can be found at

“

The Complainant is inter alia the owner of the Danish figurative trademark registration UNICO, with
registration number VR 2021 00583, and a registration date of March 20, 2021, for transportation services

(class 39).

The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2025 and also currently resolves to a website
which purportedly offers cars. The contact information on the website mentions the company name “Unico E

A/S” and includes the same address as the address 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 the following.

The Respondent is referring to the registered address of the Complainant on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. This website also refers to the former CEO of the Complainant. He is one of the beneficial owners of the Complainant.

In addition, the Respondent has sent fraudulent invoices, which refer to email address “[…]@unicoeas.com”, which includes the disputed domain name.

Unico E A/S is a group company of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

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

page 3

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of the three additional letters, here “eas” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 3.0, 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent has
clearly been targeting Internet users to defraud them by giving the impression that they were visiting the
Complainant’s website, and has been issuing fraudulent invoices, which refer to email addresses
“[…]@unicoeas.com”.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, impersonation/passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

page 4

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 <unicoeas.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Willem J. H. Leppink/
Willem J. H. Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: May 1, 2025