The Complainant was incorporated on October 15, 2020 and affirms that since then, it provides consulting, infrastructure management, and software development services in the field of information technology under the \"Oniric\" trade name and company name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the Belgian trademark ONIRIC (device) no.1438507, registered on June 26, 2021.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page displaying some sponsored links unrelated to the Complainant’s business, along with the message: “The domain <oniric.com> may be for sale.”<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <oniric.com> was registered on April 19, 2012.
The disputed domain name predates the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that: <\/p>\n
- the disputed domain name <oniric.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ONIRIC trademark
- the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
In support of these claims, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.
Furthermore, the Complainant affirms and documents that the Respondent has a history of registering several infringing domain names and has been found to have made bad faith registrations in previous UDRP cases (e.g. Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Stanley Pace CAC-UDRP-100430, Joran Lundh v. PRIVACYDOTLINK Customer 2898984 \/ Stanley Pace Case No. D2018-1902 et al.).
In addition, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent has acquired and registered the domain name solely for the purpose of selling or renting it for valuable consideration exceeding the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, and that the Respondent declined to sell the domain name at the price offered by the Complainant (i.e. USD 1,500 ). Instead, the Respondent made a counter-offer of USD 88,000.
Lastly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale, thus demonstrating the bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims that:<\/p>\n
The Complainant has failed to provide any evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith; therefore, this Complaint must be denied. The Respondent has also requested—at least implicitly—that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
In support of its claims, the Respondent affirms and provides evidence that it has owned the disputed domain name since April 19, 2012, and that it could not have registered or acquired the domain name in 2012 with the intent to exploit an entity that did not exist at the time.
In support of this thesis, the Respondent quotes Honey’s Place, Inc. v. Stanley Pace WIPO Case No. D2023-2108: “The fact that the Respondent procured the disputed domain name before the Complainant first used its trademark in commerce undermines the Complainant’s assertions that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith”.
The Respondent further contends that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in good faith.
In support of this, the Respondent points out that, over the years, previous panels have expressly found that the Respondent’s business of selling generic and descriptive domain names does not, in itself, constitute bad faith use.
Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it is well established by now that the use of common words and phrases for advertising purposes and the mere offering for sale of dictionary words and geographic terms capable of a wide range of potential meanings and uses, is not itself an illegitimate activity, absent evidence of targeting of a particular mark owner.
The Respondent points out that, although the Complainant conducted some research into prior cases involving the Respondent, it failed to mention those UDRP cases—at least five—in which the complaints were rejected.
Finally, the Respondent claims that this proceeding appears to have been brought as a Plan B and that the Complainant was aware that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name well before the Complainant’s rights came into existence, thus requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.<\/p>",
"rights": "
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).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
In light of the findings under the third element below, the Panel considers this second element unnecessary. The Panel will, therefore, not examine the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. <\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has failed to show, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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). <\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
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.<\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Fabrizio Bedarida" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of Belgian trademark ONIRIC (device) no.1438507, registered on June 26, 2021.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "oniric.com ": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }