The Complainant is a Belgian business that sells “memory jewellery” online and has used the disputed domain names for its online business since 2017.<\/p>\n
In 2023 the Complainant engaged the Respondent, a Dutch communications\/advertising agency, to assist with branding, a new website and related services, based on an offer dated 2 November 2023. For execution of the project, the Respondent was given technical access codes connected with the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
In 2025, the Complainant noticed that it no longer owned the disputed domain names and that behind a privacy provider, the Respondent had become listed as the owner. Demands to transfer it back have been refused.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TADBLU mark; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests and had no authority to take ownership of the registrations; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith by transferring them to itself and retaining them as leverage in a deteriorating commercial relationship.<\/p>\n
The Respondent asks that the Complaint be denied and requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. It argues that the transfer occurred with cooperation and approval, and that it therefore has a legitimate interest and did not act in bad faith.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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>\n
The Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court (the “CAC”) in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the CAC Supplemental Rules.<\/p>\n
The Panel has been appointed and finds that it was properly constituted. The language of the proceeding is English.<\/p>\n
The Panel has reviewed the Complaint, the Response, and both parties’ supplementary submissions.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victoria McEvedy", "Bart Van Besien", "James Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant relies on registered trademark rights in TADBLU including the International mark no. 1437413 in class 14 designating the EU, UK and Australia as well as Australian, UK and Benelux marks from 2018.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "tadblu.com": "TRANSFERRED", "tadblu-usa.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }