DECISION

 

Frigorifico Rioplatense S.A.I.C.I.F. v. LOPEZ SALGUERO JOSE ALEJANDRO

Claim Number: FA2602002206182

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Frigorifico Rioplatense S.A.I.C.I.F. ("Complainant"), represented by Alejandro Stanfield of Frigorifico Rioplatense S.A.I.C.I.F., Argentina. Respondent is LOPEZ SALGUERO JOSE ALEJANDRO ("Respondent"), Colombia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 19, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@frigorificorioplatense-ar.com. Also on February 23, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since 1974 Complainant has provided beef processing services in Argentina under a mark consisting of the word "Frigorifico Rioplatense" and a cow device ("FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark") and since 1999 has promoted its services through its website located at www.rioplatese.com ("Complainant's website"). Complainant asserts rights in FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark based upon registration with the Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial of Argentina ("INPI") (e.g. Reg. No. 2,273,767, registered September 23, 2020).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that is almost an exact copy of Complainant's website where Respondent passes off as Complainant to disrupt Complainant's business or harm Complainant's customers.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant's business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the Domain Name where it passes off as Complainant. Given the content of Respondent's Website, which reproduces the overall design, copyrighted images displayed on the Complainant's website and Complainant's address, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments.  See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the INPI (e.g. Reg. No. 2,273,767, registered September 23, 2020). Registration of a mark with the INPI is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, "Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)").

 

The Panel finds that the <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark as it incorporates the portion of the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark reproducible in a domain name (it removes the cow device which is not reproducible in a domain name), and adds the geographic abbreviation "-ar" (being short for "Argentina" the location of the Complainant) and the gTLD ".com".  The addition of a geographic term or abbreviation to a mark (or at least the portion of the mark reproducible in a domain name) fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See  Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Dell Inc. v. SNAB Corporation, FA 1785051 (Forum May 30, 2018) (finding the inclusion of a geographic term did not distinguish the domain name and increased possible confusion, as "[t]he geographic term "hyderabad" is also suggestive of Complainant as Complainant has corporate offices in Hyderabad, India."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

        

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "LOPEZ SALGUERO JOSE ALEJANDRO" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website that is almost an exact copy of the Complainant's website (including reproducing images and marks from the Complainant's website and contact details) and hence passes off as an official website of the Complainant for the apparent purpose of offering competing services under the FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage for the sole purpose of passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, September 4, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark since the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant on its website. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

        

Notwithstanding the Respondent's unsupported claims that it was just creating a test site, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) to create confusion with Complainant's FRIGORIFICO RIOPLATENSE mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website which mimics Complainant's own website for some commercial purpose, either to offer competing services or for a more nefarious purposes such as taking advantage of Complainant's customers.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <frigorificorioplatense-ar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2026