| Case number | CAC-UDRP-108699 |
|---|---|
| Time of filing | 2026-07-21 09:28:39 |
| Domain names | zenpepsupport.com |
Case administrator
| Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
|---|
Complainant
| Organization | Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. |
|---|
Complainant representative
| Organization | Thomsen Trampedach GmbH |
|---|
Respondent
| Name | brigda klimon |
|---|
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.
Complainant owns a USPTO trademark registration for the trademark ZENPEP, registration number 3747475, registered on 9 February 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on 2 June 2026.
N/A
THE COMPLAINANT
The Complainant argued that the (i) disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the above trademark, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of such disputed domain name and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent provided no response to the Complaint within the deadline. However, on 28 August 2026 the Respondent sent a communication that the Respondent does not wish to contest the Complaint and voluntarily consents to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
Since the Respondent stated that it does not wish to contest the Complaint and consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Panel accepts the Complaint and orders transfer of disputed domain name to the Complainant without further examination of the merits of the case.
- zenpepsupport.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
| Name | Michal Matějka |
|---|