Wiser Educacao S.A. v Antonio Jose da Silva

WIPO Case No. DCO2025-0067

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WISER EDUCACAO S.A. v. Antonio Jose da Silva

Case No. DCO2025-0067

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WISER EDUCACAO S.A., Brazil, represented by Araripe & Associados, Brazil.

The Respondent is Antonio Jose da Silva, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <meusucesso.co> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2025.

On August 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 15, 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 (“GoDaddy.com, LLC”) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 18, 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 August 18, 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 August 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2025.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Brazilian corporation that provides educational services, amongst which business and

entrepreneurship courses under the MEUSUCESSO.COM trademark.

In addition to the domain names <meusucesso.com.br>, registered on April 26, 2002, and

<meusucesso.com>, registered on January 31, 2013, the Complainant is also owner of the following,

amongst other, trademark registrations (Annexes 12, 13, and 14 to the Complaint):

- Brazil trademark registration No. 907620337 for the word mark MEUSUCESSO.COM, filed on April

28, 2014, registered on December 13, 2016, in class 41;

- Brazil trademark registration No. 907620574 for the word mark MEUSUCESSO.COM, filed on April

28, 2014, registered on December 13, 2016, in class 16; and

- Brazil trademark registration No. 922462828 for the word mark MEU SUCESSO, filed on March 25,

2021, registered on February 22, 2022, in class 9.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 7, 2025, and presently resolves to a parked webpage

stating that it is under construction in Portuguese. Before the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed

domain name resolved to a webpage that reproduced the contents of the Complainant’s official website

(Annexes 3 and 9 to the Complaint).

Prior to the procedure, the Complainant’s representatives sent a Cease-and-Desist letter by email to the

Respondent (Annex 11 to the Complaint), to which a third party seemingly connected to the disputed domain

name replied (Annex 8 to the Complaint) stating that the website’s content had been spontaneously

generated by AI, but had already been removed, further stating that the website’s content which had been

cloned, had been created for educational purposes in a classroom setting, with no intent to infringe or harm

the Complainant’s trademark and that the disputed domain name had been legally acquired. In such

communication, the sender did not comment on the Complainant’s transfer request.

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 asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

registered trademark, differing only by the omission of the final letter “m”, what characterizes a typical case of

typosquatting.

The Complainant’s further states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the

disputed domain name, nor is it making a bona fide offering of goods or services , given that the disputed

domain name has been used in a deliberate attempt to impersonate the Complainant and mislead Internet

users.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name

in bad faith and to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by

creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or

endorsement of its website or of the goods or services appearing thereon, in an attempt to deceive

individuals by means of a fraudulent webpage impersonating the Complainant.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the

transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is

present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.

6. 1. Language of Proceedings

Although the Complaint was submitted in English language, the Complainant requests that the language of

the administrative proceedings to be Portuguese. The Complainant bases such request mostly on the fact

that the content of the website associated with the disputed domain name was in Portuguese, it referred to

the Brazilian currency (“BRL”), and that the Complainant is a Brazilian company

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is English. Pursuant to the

Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise

in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceedings shall be the language of the

registration agreement.

Considering that the Complainant is fully capable of communicating in English, that conducting the

proceedings in English would not be unfair to either Parties, and noting the aim of conducting the

proceedings with due expedition, the Panel resolves that the language of the proceedings is English.

6.2. Substantive Matters

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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the MEU SUCESSO mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the

disputed domain name is identical to the 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.

page 4

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.

In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainant has made a prima facie case

against the Respondent who has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither

authorized, licensed, or been allowed to use the Complainant’s trademark, whether in the disputed domain

name, or in any other way.

Also, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed

domain name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

domain name.

Furthermore, and although the Panel notes that in prior dispute communications a third party apparently

connected to the disputed domain name claimed that the content of the website associated with the domain

name “had been created for educational purposes in a classroom setting”, according to the evidence

submitted by the Complainant, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a webpage

impersonating the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances. Panels have held that the

use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation and fraud, can never confer rights or

legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests

with respect to the disputed domain name.

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.

This case presents the following circumstances which indicate under the balance of probabilities bad faith

registration and use of the disputed domain name:

a) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it

of the disputed domain name;

page 5

b) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant;

c) the indication of what appears to be false contact details by the Respondent, not having been able to

deliver the Written Notice to it.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used to intentionally attempt to attract,

for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

Complainant’s mark, and thus 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 <meusucesso.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/

Wilson Pinheiro Jabur

Sole Panelist

Date: October 10, 2025