It is unknown from the amended complaint what the Complainant does. A brief internet search by the Panel suggests that the Complainant is an online video delivery technology company that provides end-to-end OTT (Over-The-Top) and IPTV software solutions for broadcasters, operators, and media providers, including content ingestion and delivery, management, monetization, and multi-screen apps. Norago TV appears to be a commercial IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) subscription service that sells access credentials to stream live television, movies, and sports over the internet. The service operates as a third-party provider, meaning that Norago TV does not host, own, or stream the content directly. Instead, it resells digital subscriptions consisting of system-generated usernames, passwords, and server playlist URLs. Users purchase these credentials and enter them into compatible video players to unlock their media access.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <noragotv.net> was registered on 20 June 2026 and, as at 12 March 2026, resolved to a webpage offering IPTV services under the name Norago TV. As at the date of this decision, the disputed domain name <noragotv.net> resolves to an inactive page. The disputed domain name <noraip.tv> was registered on 9 February 2023 and resolves to an active website hosting IP TV services under the name NORA IP TV. <\/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 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 that the disputed domain name <noragotv.net> is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 <noragotv.net> (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name <noragotv.net> 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 present proceeding raises a number of procedural issues as follows.<\/p>\n
First, the case administrator obtained express confirmation that the CAC is accredited to administer <.TV> domain disputes. The Panel is therefore satisfied that it has jurisdiction in principle to make a determination with regard to the disputed domain name <noraip.tv>, subject to the question of consolidation of the complaints in this proceeding, as to which see below.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the registration of the disputed domain name <noragotv.net> expired prior to the filing of the complaint. However, the disputed domain name has since been renewed, the disputed domain name presently remains locked, and it therefore forms the subject of this proceeding. <\/p>\n
Thirdly, the complainant requests that its complaints against the Respondents be consolidated into one proceeding. Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants the Panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. UDRP panels have looked to a variety of factors, which are typically present in some combination, to determine whether multiple domain names are, in fact, in common ownership and control (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.11.2) and whether such consolidation is appropriate. <\/p>\n
The Panel notes the Complainant’s lengthy submissions in support of its request for consolidation of the complaints into a single proceeding but the Panel does not consider that the evidence adduced by the Complainant is sufficient to point to likely common control of the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore does not grant the Complainant’s request to consolidate the complaints against the two disputed domain names, including for the following reasons: <\/p>\n
The remainder of the present decision is therefore only concerned with the first disputed domain name <noragotv.net>. The Panel invites the Complainant to file a separate complaint with regard to the second disputed domain name <noraip.tv> and makes no further findings with regard to the second disputed domain name in this decision. <\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected", "panelists": [ "Gregor Kleinknecht LLM MCIArb" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the US national word trade mark NORAGO, registration number 5794377, first registered on 2 July 2019 in international class 9; the US national word and device trade mark NORA GO, registration number 8129392, first registered on 3 February 2026 in international class 9; the US national word trade mark NORA, registration number 5832354, first registered on 13 August 2019 in international classes 9 and 42; and the stylised US national word trade mark NORA, registration number 8129367, first registered on 3 February 2026 in international classes 9 and 42.<\/p>\n
The aforementioned trade mark registration NORAGO, registration number 5794377, predates registration of the disputed domain name <noragotv.net> on 20 June 2025. By contrast, registration of the word and device trade mark NORA GO, registration number 8129392, postdates registration of the disputed domain name <noragotv.net>. Registration of the word trade mark NORA, registration number 5832354, predates registration of the disputed domain name <noraip.tv> on 9 February 2023, whereas registration of the stylised US national word trade mark NORA, registration number 8129367, postdates registration of the disputed domain name <noraip.tv>. Identification of the Complainant’s rights serves as a threshold requirement to confirm standing in UDRP proceedings (regardless of whether they predate or postdate registration of the disputed domain names) and the Complainant has in any event shown that it owns trade mark rights which predate registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant states that it owns (but the Panel notes that it is not the registrant) of the domain name <norago.tv>, registered on 31 March 2018. However, the domain name resolves to an error page, whereas the Complainant appears in fact to use the domain name <noragotv.com> to connect to the Complainant's official website through which it informs Internet users and consumers about its products and services offered under the name NORAGO. In any event, the Panel notes by reference to the Complainant’s submissions that ownership of a domain name does not constitute a trade mark or service mark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "noragotv.net": "TRANSFERRED", "noraip.tv": "" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }