Blunomy Advisory of France filed a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of Blunomy.com, claiming bad-faith registration and use. The problem? The domain was registered in February 2019, nearly four years before the Complainant filed its BLUNOMY trademark in late 2022.
The Respondent argued that Blunomy is a coined term blending “blue” and “economy,” tied to a project focused on marine sustainability. He submitted planning materials supporting his intent.
The Panel found no evidence the Respondent targeted the Complainant, whose trademark didn’t exist at the time. The Complainant’s claim of disruption lacked proof, and the Respondent demonstrated a legitimate use case. With all three UDRP elements unmet, the Panel denied the Complaint and found it was filed in bad faith: A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was entered.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of Blunomy.com to the Complainant and a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Blunomy Advisory v. Gregory Moreau
Case No. D2025-18551. The Parties
The Complainant is Blunomy Advisory, France, represented by Maître Dubois, France. The Respondent is Gregory Moreau, France.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name blunomy.com is registered with OVH (hereinafter the Registrar).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (hereinafter the Center) on May 12, 2025. On that same day the Center sent a request to the Registrar for verification of the elements of the dispute as communicated by the Complainant. On May 13, 2025, the Registrar transmitted its verification to the Center, revealing the identity of the holder of the disputed domain name and its contact details, which differed from the name of the Respondent and the contact details designated in the Complaint (Redacted for Privacy). On May 14, 2025, the Center emailed the Complainant the information concerning the holder of the disputed domain name as provided by the Registrar and invited the Complainant to submit an amended complaint. The Complainant filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2025.
The Center confirmed that the Complaint and the amended Complaint complied with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for the Implementation of the Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules to the Policy (the Supplemental Rules) for implementing the aforementioned Policy.
Pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, on May 21, 2025, a notification of the Complaint constituting commencement of the administrative proceeding was sent to the Respondent. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Rules, the deadline to submit a Response was June 14, 2025. The Respondent submitted a Response on that date.
On June 24, 2025, the Center appointed Vincent Denoyelle as the sole panelist in this dispute. The Administrative Panel finds that it was properly constituted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. The Administrative Panel submitted to the Center a declaration of acceptance and a declaration of impartiality and independence in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Rules.
On July 10, 2025, the Administrative Panel issued a Procedural Order requesting the Respondent to provide the three documents listed in the Annex to its Response. The Procedural Order also afforded the Complainant an opportunity to comment on the Respondent’s submission in reply to the Procedural Order, if any. On July 15, 2025, the Respondent provided the three documents listed in the Annex to its Response. The Complainant submitted no comments or reply following the Respondent’s submission.
4. Facts
The Complainant is a French consulting company in energy and environmental transition. The Complainant is the holder of the French trademark BLUNOMY No. 4907681, filed on October 24, 2022 and registered on February 10, 2023. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to an under construction page.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required by the Policy for the transfer of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant argues that there is a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant states that no legitimate interest should be found. With respect to bad faith, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent (i) registered the disputed domain name without any intention of making any use of it and (ii) intended to disrupt the activities of a competitor.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required by the Policy for the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent emphasizes that he registered the disputed domain name several years before the Complainant filed for its BLUNOMY trademark. He asserts that the term blunomy is a generic portmanteau blending the English terms blue and economy, referring to the concept of the blue economy that emerged in the 1990s. The Respondent declares that he registered the disputed domain name in connection with a project to create a platform dedicated to the blue economy and provided preparatory materials related to that project.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is accepted that the first element operates primarily as a standing or threshold requirement. The requirement regarding identity or confusing similarity entails a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The Complainant has demonstrated rights in a mark for goods or services under the Policy. The entirety of the mark BLUNOMY is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Thus, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark under the Policy. The Administrative Panel finds that the first element of the Policy is satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists the circumstances in which a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in respect of a disputed domain name. Although the burden of proof in UDRP proceedings lies primarily with the Complainant, panels have recognized that requiring a Complainant to prove that a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests effectively imposes a difficult negative burden, demanding information often in the possession or control of the Respondent. Thus, when a Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, it is for the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests, while the overall burden remains with the Complainant. If the Respondent does not present such evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy.
In this case, the Complainant merely asserted that the Respondent made no use of the disputed domain name, without attempting to characterize that alleged absence of legitimate interest or use. Moreover, the Respondent refuted the Complainant’s assertion by providing an explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name and the choice of the term blunomy, approximately three years and eight months before the Complainant’s trademark application. The Administrative Panel considers that prior to the commencement of the proceeding against the Respondent, the Respondent demonstrated that he was preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. However, in light of the Panel’s considerations regarding the third element below, it is not necessary to make a definitive finding on the second element.
C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
To satisfy the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given that a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name has been shown, it is not necessary to carry out the full analysis on the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Nevertheless, the Administrative Panel deems it important to address the third element briefly. Preliminarily, in view of the content of the Complaint filed by the Complainant, the Panel finds it necessary to emphasize that the criteria of bad faith registration and bad faith use are cumulative.
Regarding the first criterion, the Panel notes that the Complainant simply asserted that the Respondent registered the domain name blunomy.com without ever having had any intention of making any use of it. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made no showing of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s case is based solely on the BLUNOMY trademark filed on October 24, 2022 and registered on February 10, 2023. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2019. No argument or evidence was submitted by the Complainant to explain how it could be justified to consider that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent would have intended—even could have—targeted the Complainant’s marks, which did not exist and had not even been filed, nor imminently to be filed, since the Complainant’s trademark application was more than three years after the domain registration. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith targeting the Complainant or its marks, because the Complainant had no trademark rights at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
As for the alleged bad faith use of the disputed domain name, it is not sufficiently demonstrated by the Complainant, who only asserts that the Respondent intended to disrupt the activities of a competitor, without providing any explanation or evidence supporting that assertion. Moreover, the Respondent submitted materials illustrating the plan for his project associated with the disputed domain name, while the Complainant submitted no comment on that point. The Administrative Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is not satisfied.
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Policy provides that if the Panel finds that a Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at illicit domain name capture (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking), or primarily to harass the domain name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere denial of the Complaint is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute such abuse.
The Respondent requests that the Panel explicitly state in its Decision that the Complaint constitutes an abuse of process. Abusive proceedings are addressed in paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, which states that if, based on the material submitted, the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at illicit domain name capture (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking), or was brought primarily to harass the domain name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The circumstances listed in section 4.16 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 that may characterize an abuse of the administrative proceeding include facts demonstrating that the complainant knew that it could not succeed on any of the three required elements and basing a complaint on a weak allegation without any supporting evidence.
Where a complainant is represented by counsel, some panels have held that the complainant is held to a higher standard, considering the undertakings in paragraphs 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the UDRP Rules. The Panel notes that the Complainant, represented by counsel, did not demonstrate or even attempt to demonstrate, even minimally, the existence of fundamental elements required to satisfy the Policy, such that the Complainant could not have been unaware that it could not succeed on any of the three required elements.
7. Decision
In view of the foregoing, the Complaint is denied. Moreover, the Administrative Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
/s/ Vincent Denoyelle
Vincent Denoyelle
Sole Panelist
Date: July 29, 2025
