The Complainant states that it is limited liability company based in Czechia specialized in the development of large-scale software solutions for which it uses the brand “Eluvia“. The Complainant points out that it is the owner of the domain name <eluvia.com>, used for advertise its products and services, and of other domain names containing the distinctive element \"eluvia\" such as <eluvia.cz>, <eluvia.eu>, <eluvia.cloud>, <eluvia.land>, <eluvia.online>, <eluvia.space>, <eluvia.design>, <eluvia.dev> and <eluvia.world>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website with generic content which has no relation to the name “Eluvia”. The website contains articles of the same author, which date from before the registration of the disputed domain name (namely August and September 2021), probably generated by artificial intelligence. Prior to that website, there was another website which referred to “Eluvia Digital” brand and promoted goods and services similar to those of the Complainant with the statement “Founded in 2015 Eluvia Digital has cemented its place as a global leader in IT Service and Solution”. The website was allegedly operated by the entity \"Eluvia Digital\" headquartered in London, United Kingdom. However, no Eluvia Digital entity is listed in the companies register in the UK. Two \"Eluvia Limited\" entities are listed in the above-mentioned register, however none of them is based in London; one of them was incorporated in September 2025, while the other one was dissolved in 2013. No \"Eluvia Digital\" entity can be found in an internet search. According to the information from the registrar, the disputed domain name is owned by the Respondent domiciled in India.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark because it includes Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and the top-level domain must be disregarded under the identity or confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of the registration.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
- the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n
- the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant;<\/p>\n
- the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name;
- the generic content published on the Respondent's website is not related to the Eluvia name and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services;<\/p>\n
- the use of the previous Respondent's website, which advertised “IT services and solution” allegedly provided by the entity Eluvia Digital based in London had no relationship whatsoever to the Respondent allegedly domiciled in India and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that:<\/p>\n
- the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name for the previous fake website advertising non-existent products and services similar to those of the Complainant;<\/p>\n
- the non-existent products and services were allegedly provided by a non-existent entity \"Eluvia Digital\" which has no relationship to the Respondent, allegedly domiciled in India;<\/p>\n
- the current generic and likely AI generated website has no relation to the name “Eluvia\";<\/p>\n
- by the previous website, the Respondent has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark to attract internet users to the Respondent’s fake website;<\/p>\n
- the circumstances indicate that it is a prima facie cybersquatting case. <\/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": "
The Complainant, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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": "
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).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
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).<\/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": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-20 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the EU trademark No. 018263650, \"ELUVIA\", registred on February 5, 2021, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on <\/span>March 25, 2025. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "eluvia.digital": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }