DECISION

 

Docebo S.p.A. v. Ayush Baldota / Instantly.ai

Claim Number: FA2606002229433

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Docebo S.p.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Kennington R. Groff of Bekiares Eliezer LLP dba Founders Legal, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Ayush Baldota / Instantly.ai ("Respondent"), Wyoming, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <docebo-collaborations.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2026; Forum received payment on June 25, 2026.

 

On June 26, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <docebo-collaborations.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 July 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@docebo-collaborations.com. Also on July 1, 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 July 22,2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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

    Complainant made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is an Italian company engaged in the provision of software for learning and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 2015.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for DOCEBO.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by the registration of the DOCEBO trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,792,474, registered by the Complainant on August 18, 2015 ("the DOCEBO trademark").

4.       The DOCEBO trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as its owner.

5.       In addition to the DOCEBO trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <docebo.com> which it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.docebo.com which contains detailed information on the Complainant's DOCEBO services. 

6.       The Respondent registered the <docebo-collaborations.com>, domain name on April 20,2026 ("the disputed domain name").

7.       The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DOCEBO trademark.

8.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as:

(a)                      the Respondent has used the domain name to create email addresses and send emails impersonating the Complainant and it has set the domain name to redirect to the Complainant's website with the intention of confusing the Complainant's customers and potential customers into believing that it was associated with the Complainant to derive revenue from those customers;

(b)                      the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given any authority or permission to the Respondent to use the DOCEBO trademark in a domain name or in any other manner; and

(c)                      there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

9.       The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as:

(a)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the domain name;

(b)       the Respondent has registered the domain name and incorporated in it the Complainant's DOCEBO trademark and created an email address using the domain name and has used it to send emails to the Complainant's customers and potential customers, holding itself out by that means to be the Complainant or to be authorized by it;

(c)       the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to attempt to scam internet users into paying money to the Respondent;

(d)        the Respondent has set the domain name to resolve to the Complainant's website so as to induce internet users into believing that its use of the domain name was valid and legitimate; and 

(e)        there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is an Italian company engaged in the provision of software for learning and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 2015.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for DOCEBO.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by the registration of the DOCEBO trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,792,474, registered by the Complainant on August 18, 2015 ("the DOCEBO trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the <docebo-collaborations.com>, domain name on April 20,2026 ("the disputed domain name") several years after the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights.

5.       The Respondent has used the domain name to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, to mislead and deceive internet users into believing that it was the Complainant or could act lawfully on its behalf and to purport to collaborate with third parties in offering the Complainant's services.

6.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's DOCEBO trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

7.       Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant

 

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 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

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the DOCEBO trademark. The evidence is also that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by the registration of the DOCEBO trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,792,474, registered by the Complainant on August 18, 2015 ("the DOCEBO trademark").

 

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and which shows that the trademark is registered in the name of the Complainant and that it is current.

The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights and hence its standing to institute this proceeding.

 

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's DOCEBO trademark. In that regard, it is well-established that, in undertaking this exercise, a panel should have regard only to the strict wording of the relevant trademark and domain name and not to any other evidence that might emerge when dealing with other issues such as the conduct of the parties as shown by its use of the domain name or the contents of any website to which the disputed domain name resolves.

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's DOCEBO trademark. That is so, as the domain name incorporates the entirety of the DOCEBO trademark, which is the first and dominant feature of the domain name and which is a strong mark, as the Complainant rightly submits. Internet users would therefore naturally assume that it is a domain name of the Complainant itself or one that is authorized by it, that it is a domain name reflecting and associated with the DOCEBO trademark and that it can be used for dealings and transactions with the Complainant.

 

The domain name includes the word "collaborations" which in business, commerce and social interactions is widely understood to mean "dealing with or associated with", in the present case, the Complainant. Thus, the domain name gives the overall impression that it means and is intended to mean that it is a domain name of the Complainant, one that it is authorised by the Complainant to be used for collaborations with it or a domain name which the owner of the domain name is entitled to use.

 

The domain name also includes a hyphen which is not in the trademark, but it is well-established that such features are not significant enough to negate a finding of confusing similarity that is otherwise open on the evidence, as it is in the present case.

 

It is also well-established that a panel should not have regard to a domain name having been registered in a Top Level Domain, such as ".com" in the present case, as all domain names must have some such extension.

 

In substance, an internet user would therefore conclude that the disputed domain name is similar to the trademark and confusingly so, because the domain name is invoking the trademark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DOCEBO trademark.

 

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as:

(a)                      the Complainant has submitted that Respondent has used the domain name to create email addresses and send emails impersonating the Complainant and that it has set the domain name to redirect to the Complainant's website with the intention of confusing the Complainant's customers and potential customers into believing that it was associated with the Complainant to derive revenue from those customers; the evidence to establish those conclusions is said to come from an email that is included in Annex 2; that email purports to be written by "Alex Richards, Partnerships Coordinator Docebo" and purports to deal with the subject "Collaboration Opportunity with Docebo"; it was apparently forwarded to the Complainant by a former employee of the Complainant; and a current employee of the Complainant has stated that the offending email was sent from the email address "alex.r@docebo-collaborations.com"; is clear therefore that it was sent by the Respondent or someone on its behalf who has used the disputed domain name; its assertions imply that the sender has the authority to discuss a "Collaboration Opportunity with Docebo" which is not so, on the Complainant's evidence, and to describe itself as "Partnerships Coordinator Docebo", which is also untrue; thus, the disputed domain name has been used to send an email which is seriously misleading in these two respects; it therefore shows that the Respondent can have no right or legitimate interest in a domain name which itself includes the Complainant's trademark and which makes the foregoing unauthorized statements;  

(b)                      the evidence is also to the effect that the domain name does not resolve to an active website; that is also at least prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; 

(c)                      the evidence is also that the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant and that the Complainant has not given any authority or permission to the Respondent to use the DOCEBO trademark in a domain name or in any other manner; that is also at least prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name;

(d)                      the totality of the evidence also leads to the conclusion that the Respondent, by using the domain name in the foregoing manner, has sought to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant; and

(e)                      the evidence shows that there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel adds that on the evidence, the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) and that the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), all of which show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

All of these matters make out a prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

 

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b), described in that provision as being "without limitation", are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

 

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Annex 2, which evidence is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has clearly used it in bad faith in view of the fact that it has clearly been used to make the two misleading statements discussed above. That being so, the registration of the domain name must have occurred with the same motivation. Moreover, the Respondent has registered a domain name that gives the false impression to internet users that it was a domain name of or associated with the Complainant, which it was not, and that it had been registered by the Complainant or was authorised by it, which it also was not; the evidence also shows that the Respondent was intending to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, an intention that was subsequently borne out by the evidence of the way in which the Respondent has used the domain name, which was clearly to give the false impression that the email in Annex 2 was legitimate. In particular:

(a)       the Respondent has registered the domain name and incorporated in it the Complainant's DOCEBO trademark and created an email address using the domain name and has used it to send at least one email holding itself out to be the Complainant or to be authorized by it and in particular to be the "Partnerships Coordinator Docebo" ; this was calculated to mislead and deceive internet users, motives that were in bad faith because they were dishonest; this use of the domain name was in bad faith and its registration must have had the same motivation;

(b)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the domain name; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge as it incorporated the trademark in the domain name and used it for a purpose inimical to the interests of the Complainant, which owns the trademark; moreover, the Respondent could not have embarked on its subterfuge without having actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark;

(c)       the Complainant has submitted and on that basis the Panel accepts that the Respondent has set the domain name to resolve to the Complainant's website so as to induce internet users into believing that its use of the domain name was valid and legitimate, which it was not;

(d)       the Panel has noted that, as set out in Annex 2, the offending email discussed above came from "Alex Richards via info@talentlms.com"; the Panel notes from its website that the company Talent LMS is in the same industry as the Complainant; thus, as the solicitation for a "Collaboration Opportunity with Docebo" came from that company and as it used the disputed domain name to promote its interests in that regard, such conduct necessarily must have disrupted the Complainant's business; accordingly the Respondent has "…  registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;…", giving rise to an additional ground of bad faith registration and use;

(e)       the Panel has also noted that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); the Respondent clearly intended to confuse internet users into believing that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it and that it was lawfully able to speak on behalf of the Complainant, which it was not; and

(f)        there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith.

 

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), namely that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Complainant has presented a case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy and has cited prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions. It is therefore entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

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 <docebo-collaborations.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist

Dated: July 23, 2026