NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

aam2core Holding AG v. Shakhnoza Turaboeva

Claim Number: FA2607002234322

PARTIES

Complainant is aam2core Holding AG ("Complainant"), represented by Christoph Matras of FPS Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Germany. Respondent is Shakhnoza Turaboeva ("Respondent"), Usbekistan.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aam2core.org>, ('the Domain Name') registered with Spaceship, Inc.

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.

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 23, 2026; Forum received payment on July 23, 2026.

On July 24, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aam2core.org> Domain Name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 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@aam2core.org. Also on July 30, 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 August 20, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the arbitrary and unique trade mark AAM2CORE, registered, inter alia, in Germany for real estate related services since 2020. It owns and uses www.aam2core.com.

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is identical to the Complainant's trade mark adding only the gTLD .org which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name has been used for a site offering real estate related services using the Complainant's mark in its masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site. The site also uses the Complainant's real contact details including its physical address and telephone number. This is impersonation for phishing purposes and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. Phishing is bad faith per se.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The Domain Name registered in 2026 has been used for a site offering real estate related services using the Complainant's mark in its masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site. The site also uses the Complainant's real contact details including its physical address and telephone number.

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 3.1 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

The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's mark AAM2CORE (registered, inter alia, in Germany for real estate related services since 2020) and the gTLD .org.

gTLDs are typically disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's mark. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial use.

The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name to appear to be a site the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in the masthead, copying material from the Complainant's web site and using the Complainant's contact details on the site. This is impersonation and, as such, this cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As determined above the Respondent's use of the Domain Name is commercial and it is using it to fraudulently offer services not associated with the Complainant in a confusing manner. The use of material from the Complainant's web site and the Complainant's contact details makes it clear that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation of the Respondent's web site and services offered on it, designed to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA 1762308 (Forum Jan 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4 (b)(iii).) See also CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson/CAN Insurance, FA 1541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014)(finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy 4 (b)(iv) by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users where it offered competing services).

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under paragraphs 4 (b)(iii) and (iv) and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

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 <aam2core.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: August 20, 2026