The Complainant is a Hungarian company established in 2004 and has operated under the name “HELL ENERGY” since May 7, 2009. The Complainant produces and distributes “HELL ENERGY” branded energy drinks and “HELL” branded coffee beverages in over 60 countries, including across the European Union and Asia.<\/p>\n
In 2011, the Complainant established its own filling plant equipped with German technology, which produces premium-quality drinks in strict compliance with the FSSC 22000 food safety standards. By 2017, the Complainant developed its own beverage can factory suitable for the production of aluminium cans. In 2019, the Complainant´s filling plant and beverage can factory won the Factory of the Year Award in the category of the most effective production support processes.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns the domain names <hellenergy.hu> registered since April 25, 2006, and <hellenergy.com> registered since June 12, 2006; used as the official website in connection with the distribution of energy drinks and coffee beverages.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes the following previous instances submitted by the Complainant, i.e., HELL ENERGY Magyarország Kft. v. Heaven Traders LLP<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-103020, where the disputed domain name <hellrockenergy.com> was used to promote energy drinks and the look and feel of the Complainant’s website was copied by the Respondent; and HELL ENERGY Magyarország Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság v. King Cobra<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-104970, where the disputed domain name <hellenergy-hu.com> was inactive.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <hell.energy<\/strong>> was registered on January 5, 2016,<\/strong> and resolves to a landing page website that offers the disputed domain name for rent or sale, and provides a contact for it.<\/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": " Response<\/strong><\/p>\n No Response or any communication has been submitted by the Respondent, despite the fair opportunities provided.<\/p>\n In accordance with paragraph 5(f) of the Rules, in the absence of a Response, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. The complainant bears the burden of proof; a respondent’s default does not, by itself, mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) section 4.3. Therefore, the Panel will decide this case based on the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of evidence” standard. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.2.<\/p>\n Complainant Contentions (summary)<\/strong>:<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name in this case, including the generic Top Level Domain “.energy” is practically identical to the Complainant’s trademark HELL ENERGY. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, given that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to a competitor of that the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name, as set out by paragraph 4.(b)(i) of the Policy; that the Complainant after a couple of requests to Eduardo Dorronto, e-mail: ‘eduardo@hell.energy’ which appears as the unique contact from the Respondent’s website, provided the following information in relation to the disputed domain name: “About your question: yes, the domain is still in trade; however as the name is premium category, we start the negotiations from 150-200K USD. If this price is in your budget, please send me an offer…”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is a Hungarian company as well as the Complainant, that it was highly improbable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s earlier rights over HELL ENERGY, including the domain names (2006), the company name (2009) and the earlier trademarks (2006-2015) at the registration of the disputed domain name; that by the time of the registration the Complainant was widely known, based on a publication of 2026 related to the 20th anniversary of the HELL ENERGY brand, which contains a summary on the Complainant’s history; that the HELL ENERGY branded energy drink was a market leader in Hungary already by 2010, that became the official sponsor of the AT&T Williams Formula-1 team for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, as further explained in the Wikipedia article about the Complainant’s brand.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name constitutes a very specific (i.e. non-generic) and distinctive term, which is a clear reference to the Complainant’s well-known and prestigious HELL ENERGY energy drink brand; that the combination \"HELL+ENERGY\" is not a natural dictionary pairing and carries no meaning independent of the Complainant's brand and trademarks; that the Respondent’s knowledge about the value of the disputed domain name is confirmed by the fact that it was said to be “premium category”, and also that it was offered for sale for a premium purchase price; that the reason for that could only be that the disputed domain name is the exact – and therefore unique – New Top-Level Domain (nTLD) version of the Complainant’s world-famous HELL ENERGY brand and trademarks, which is not a random dictionary term but represents a targeted attempt to capture the exact brand name in an nTLD form, that therefore, the Respondent could reasonably expect that at a certain point in time, the Complainant will become interested in purchasing it, even for an excessive purchase price.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical 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": " Procedural Order No.1 <\/strong><\/p>\n In the present case, after evaluating the case file and the available evidence, on August 3, 2026, the Panel, in accordance with paragraphs 10 (a) to (d) of the Rules, issued a Procedural Order in the following terms:<\/p>\n Notification of Complaint – Forwarding: The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolved to an active website which offers it for sale or rent, and indicates “If you wish to buy or rent this domain please contact us! Write to Eduardo Dorronto”. The contact’s name ‘Eduardo Dorronto’ is hyperlinked to the following e-mail: ‘eduardo@hell.energy’. The Complainant provided an e-mail communication from the same e-mail address. Therefore, given its activity, and its omission at the time of the Notification of the Complaint, the Panel instructs the following:<\/p>\n On August 3, 2026, the Provider notified the Panel Order through its platform, setting August 7, 2026 as the deadline for the Respondent to submit its arguments and August 17, 2026 as the Decision due date.<\/p>\n On August 10, 2026, the Panel was informed by the Provider that no further communication has been submitted from any of the Parties, including from this e-mail address: 'eduardo@hell.energy'. Therefore, the Panel proceeded to render its Decision, in accordance with paragraph 10 (c) of the Rules. <\/p>\n 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": [
"María Alejandra López García"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-11 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the term HELL ENERGY and HELL ENERGY DRINK, including but not limited to:<\/p>\n - Hungarian trademark for HELL ENERGY DRINK (and design) [1], Reg. No. M0700698, filed on March 2, 2007, registered on January 3, 2008, in force until March 3, 2027; in International Class (“IC”) 32; and<\/p>\n - European trademark for HELL ENERGY (and design), Reg. No. 009530511, filed on November 17, 2010, registered on May 3, 2011, in force until November 17, 2030; in International Class (“IC”) 32; and<\/p>\n - European trademark for HELL ENERGY (work mark), Reg. No. 014749253, filed on October 30, 2015, registered on December 23, 2016, in force until October 30, 2035; in International Class (“IC”) 32; and<\/p>\n - United Kingdom trademark for HELL ENERGY (word mark), Reg. No. UK00914749253, filed on October 30, 2015, registered on December 23, 2016, in force until October 30, 2035, in IC 32.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, given that the Respondent is not related to nor affiliated with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the HELL ENERGY or HELL ENERGY DRINK trademarks in any way, including as a domain name; that the disputed domain name is not being used for the bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, because merely offers the disputed domain for sale, that no actual commercial activity was conducted via the disputed domain name; that the Respondent is not commonly known by the term ‘“hell.energy”; that according to an internet search on the Respondent’s website available at <unitechnal.hu> for the word “HELL” has not yielded any hits, meaning that the Respondent has not even used the sign “HELL” or “HELL ENERGY” at all.
<\/p>\n\n
<\/li>\n
2.1. To forward the Notification of the Complaint, including Annexes and Written Notice of July 1, 2026, to Eduardo Dorronto at ‘eduardo@hell.energy’, as an additional contact under paragraph 2.(a)(ii)(c) of the Rules, and provide a period or time of five (5) calendar days to submit any comments.
2.2. Once said period has elapsed, the Panel shall render its decision within the following five (5) calendar days.
<\/li>\n