www.euqueronestle.com.br<\/a>, which resolves to a consumer platform used for promotions, campaigns, and consumer engagement involving the NESTLE mark in Brazil.<\/p>\nThe disputed domain name has been registered on August 7, 2025, allegedly by a Brazilian individual located in Brazil.<\/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 contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name consists of the trademark NESTLE preceded by the Portuguese words \"eu quiero\", which translate into English as \"I want\". The addition of generic and descriptive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; on the contrary, it reinforces the association with the Complainant's mark by conveying a consumer's desire for the NESTLE mark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant nor has any other connection with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the NESTLE mark, or to incorporate it into any domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent owns any trademark rights in \"eu quero nestle\" or similar expressions, nor that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
In addition, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has it made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's mark together with additional terms, that, taken together, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner and therefore cannot constitute fair use. This is particularly evident in the present case, where the specific combination \"euqueronestle\" closely mirrors the Complainant's own official Brazilian domain name <equeronestle.com.br>, which is actively used as a consumer-facing promotional platform.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to operate a fraudulent e-commerce website offering counterfeit products bearing the Complainant's trademark, and to redirect visitors to a pornographic website. Neither of these uses constitutes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Such conduct may also be commercially motivated, as redirection schemes involving pornographic content are often monetized through pay-per-click revenue, affiliate commissions, or similar arrangements.<\/p>\n
As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant points out that the NESTLE mark is a well-known mark and enjoys international reputation throughout the world.<\/p>\n
The Complainant affirms that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. This is so because such domain names will naturally be perceived by the Internet users as being connected to the famous trademark, allowing abusive registrants to benefit from the resulting confusion for commercial gain.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the disputed domain name not only incorporates the NESTLE mark, but also reproduces the exact formulation of the Complainant's official Brazilian promotional domain name <euqueronestle.com.br>. This strongly indicates that the Respondent was aware of both the Complainant's trademark and its specific online presence in Brazil at the time of the registration. According to the Complainant, the registration of the disputed domain name was a deliberate and targeted attempt to capitalize on the goodwill in the NESTLE mark, as well as on the consumer's familiarity with the \"eu quero …..\" formulation.<\/p>\n
Finally, the fact that the domain name is in Portuguese, a language directly linked to the market in which the Complainant operates its corresponding official domain name (Brazil), further demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and of its rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
With respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was initially used to host a fraudulent website that closely imitated the Complainant's official Brazilian e-commerce platform. This website featured, without authorization, the Complainant's trademark, trade dress, and product imagery, and purported to offer NESTLE-branded products, including infant formula and baby nutrition items, for sale to consumers.<\/p>\n
The Respondent intentionally sought to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products offered therein. The fraudulent nature of the Respondent's website is further demonstrated by the fact that the Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to sell its products and has no commercial relationship with it.<\/p>\n
Such use of the disputed domain name also disrupts the Complainant's business in the Brazilian market by diverting consumer traffic intended for the Complainant's official website and by undermining the reputation and consumer trust associated with the NESTLE mark.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's conduct raises serious safety concerns, particularly insofar as the fraudulent website may be involved with the sale of counterfeit products, posing significant risks to infant health and safety.<\/p>\n
As noted above, following the operation of the fraudulent e-commerce website, the disputed domain name was subsequently configured to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website. This redirection is likely monetized through pay-per-click revenues, affiliate programs, or similar arrangements. The Respondent is therefore intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its online content for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n
The redirection of the disputed domain name to pornographic content also tarnishes the Complainant's trademark, as it creates an involuntary and damaging association between the Complainant's family-oriented food mark and explicit material. <\/p>\n
Further evidence of bad faith lies in the fact that such redirection disrupts the Complainant's business by diverting traffic intended for its official website and damaging the reputation and trust associated with the NESTLE mark. This is particularly harmful given that the Complainant's product range includes baby food and children's products, making an association with inappropriate content especially prejudicial.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the pattern of successive abusive uses demonstrates persistent bad faith. The Respondent's use of a privacy protection service further suggests an intention to conceal its identity; when considered together with other factors, this conduct supports the Respondent's bad faith.<\/p>\n
Finally in light of the strong reputation of the NESTLE mark, there is no conceivable good faith use that the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
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": [
"Angelica Lodigiani"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-30 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of a large portfolio of NESTLE trademarks registered worldwide. Among its numerous trademarks, the Complainant has identified the following for the purposes of the present dispute:<\/p>\n
- NESTLE (word), International registration No. 793804, registered on December 10, 2002 for goods and services in classes 1 to 44, designating over 20 countries;<\/p>\n
- NESTLE, Brazilian registration No. 00750059168, registered on 2 March 1982, for goods in class 29. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"euqueronestle.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}