Dexatel.com: UDRP uncovered activities of former CTO

The domain name Dexatel.com became the subject of a UDRP, filed by telecom company Dexatel CJSC.

Although the domain was originally registered in 2005, Dexatel acquired it in 2015 and integrated it into its core infrastructure. The conflict arose when the Respondent—the company’s former CTO—shortly before his termination in late 2023, changed the domain’s admin email to his personal address, locking the company out.

The Complainant argued the change was unauthorized and obstructed critical business operations, while the Respondent claimed it was a technical workaround during email issues. The panel found that this unilateral control shift amounted to a constructive re-registration in bad faith, especially since the domain had been continuously managed and paid for by the company.

Despite no evidence of monetization or competitive use, the panel ruled that the Respondent had no legitimate interest and misused privileged access. The decision reinforces how internal disputes over digital assets and domain names in particular can escalate into serious governance and legal issues if not tightly controlled.

Final decision: Grant the transfer of the domain Dexatel.com to the Complainant.

Dexatel CJSC v. Sipan Babertsyan

Claim Number: FA2504002149845

PARTIES

Complainant is Dexatel CJSC (“Complainant”), represented by Lilit Yeghiazaryan, Estonia. Respondent is Sipan Babertsyan (“Respondent”), Armenia.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is dexatel.com, registered with FastDomain 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.

Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 10, 2025; Forum received payment on April 10, 2025.

On April 10, 2025, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the dexatel.com domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 April 15, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2025 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@dexatel.com. Also on April 15, 2025, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 9, 2025.

On May 12, 2025, pursuant to the Parties’ requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist. Complainant also issued additional submissions.

On May 15, 2025, Respondent and Complainant issued additional submissions.

On May 19, 2025, Respondent issued additional submissions.

On May 22, 2025, The Panel issued an Additional Submission Order asking the Complainant to provide conclusive evidence regarding the ownership of the domain name. On May 27, 2025, the Complainant answered to the Order and provided further submissions.

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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

Complainant claims that the disputed domain name dexatel.com is identical to the registered trademark DEXATEL owned and used by Complainant since 2015. The domain reflects the exact brand name and is being used to impersonate or misrepresent Complainant’s business identity.

Complainant argues that Respondent, Mr. Sipan Babertsyan, is a former employee (Chief Technology Officer) whose contract was terminated on December 4, 2023. He had no personal ownership rights over the domain. The domain was registered by and used exclusively by Complainant for nearly a decade. Respondent changed the domain admin email to his personal Gmail address in secret prior to his termination and is now obstructing access.

Complainant alleges that Respondent intentionally changed the email admin contact to his personal address shortly before his departure without notifying Complainant. He rejected a formal access recovery initiated through Bluehost, despite no longer being affiliated with the company. His refusal to cooperate and denial of involvement indicate clear bad faith. The domain is essential to Complainant’s business operations and Respondent’s control endangers customer communications, financial operations and global services.

A criminal case is being prepared against Respondent in Armenia for unauthorized access and potential cybercrimes.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends as follows:

As Chief Technology Officer, Respondent was explicitly authorized to manage and operate the domain, an undisputed fact. The change of the admin email to the Respondent’s personal Gmail address was necessitated by technical issues with the corporate email system, ensuring the receipt of critical emails and continuity of the Complainant’s services.

While no written documentation explicitly confirms Complainant’s awareness of the email change, circumstantial evidence strongly supports that it was not covert:

· Complainant continued to use the domain without interruption after the change, indicating no operational concerns.

· No objections were raised until November 2024, nearly a year after the Respondent’s termination in December 2023, suggesting tacit approval. Moreover, the billing orders from as early as November 7, 2023 (while Respondent was still the Chief Technology Officer of Complainant), list Respondent’s name as Respondent is the account holder. This suggests actual knowledge by the Complainant of the changes to the account.

· Respondent’s CTO role inherently included authority to make technical adjustments.

Respondent has applied to Bluehost to obtain written evidence confirming the rationale and timing of the change, which significantly deviates from what the Complainant has stated.

Prior to termination, the parties were negotiating to grant Respondent preferred stockholder status, which would have included rights to Complainant’s properties, potentially including the domain. Although these negotiations were disrupted when Complainant offered stock options instead, they provide context for Respondent’s legitimate interests during employment.

Complainant’s letter to Bluehost dated February 18, 2025, questions why billing details remained under the company’s CEO if the account was personal. This position is particularly interesting given that Respondent made payments for the domain. This contradicts claims of covert control and suggests Complainant was aware of the arrangement, as they did not object to these payments for years.

Respondent claims that it did not register the domain; it was already registered by Complainant. The admin email change was an administrative action within Respondent’s CTO duties to address technical issues, not a registration act.

Respondent returned all requested login credentials upon termination in December 2023, complying fully with Complainant’s requests, as evidenced by termination records. This demonstrates no intent to retain control or misuse the domain. Complainant’s loss of access in November 2024 resulted from the action of enabling two-factor authentication, confirmed in their letter to Bluehost, not from any action by Respondent.

· Respondent did not use the domain to disrupt Complainant’s business, endorse competitors, or profit, as required for bad faith under Paragraph 4(b).

· Complainant’s delay in raising concerns until nearly a year post-termination undermines claims of immediate bad faith.

· Complainant’s failure to contact Respondent directly, instead escalating through Bluehost and issuing a threatening letter, suggests an unreasonable approach, weakening their bad faith allegations.

Complainant’s claim that Respondent’s “refusal to cooperate and denial of involvement indicate clear bad faith” is baseless, as no request for cooperation was made. Complainant’s assertion that Respondent’s control “endangers customer communications, financial operations, and global services” is speculative, lacking evidence of actual harm or disruption by the Respondent.

C. Complainant’s reply

Complainant challenges Respondent’s claim of technical issues justifying the change of the domain admin email, asserting that Dexatel’s Gmail system has operated uninterrupted for years, as independently verifiable. It emphasizes that the Respondent’s access was solely as a company employee, without authority to transfer administrative control to a personal account, and that this change was made without Complainant’s knowledge or consent.

The Complainant further considers references to shareholder negotiations irrelevant and distracting, lacking legal support and unrelated to the domain dispute.

Regarding payment claims, Complainant clarifies that Bluehost invoices, including the November 7, 2023 and November 15, 2024 bills, were paid by Dexatel’s corporate account, managed routinely by its accounting team. The discovery of unauthorized transfer of administrative control coincided with a failed attempt to access the 2024 invoice due to credential changes.

Finally, Complainant maintains that Respondent’s unilateral change caused Dexatel to lose administrative control over a key corporate asset, an outcome deemed unjustifiable and harmful regardless of stated intentions.

D. Respondent’s reply

Respondent disputes the Complainant’s denial of technical issues, clarifying that the problem involved DNS resolution and routing impairing administrative email delivery, not Gmail uptime. Acting prudently as CTO, Respondent rerouted domain-related communications to a monitored personal account, ensuring uninterrupted domain operation without objection for over a year, evidencing tacit acceptance and no concealment.

As CTO, Respondent held explicit responsibility for IT infrastructure, including domain and hosting management, supported by billing records bearing his name and email, absence of any restricting directives, and continued company reliance on the domain post-change. The claim of lacking authority conflicts with his role and historical practice.

Respondent argues that his involvement in shareholder negotiations prior to termination is directly relevant to his legitimate interests under UDRP paragraph 4(c), reflecting his strategic operational role.

Regarding hosting payments, Complainant’s narrative is undermined by its admission that Dexatel paid invoices issued in Respondent’s name without objection or corrective action, suggesting approval or neglect, neither supporting bad faith.

Respondent rejects allegations of unlawful domain transfer or lost control, noting no denial of access or obstruction of operations. Complainant’s access loss was due to enabled two-factor authentication, not Respondent’s actions. Complainant’s approach to escalate via threats rather than communication evidences intent to litigate, not resolve.

No evidence shows Respondent used the domain for competing purposes or commercial gain, hallmarks of bad faith under UDRP. Respondent maintains this dispute is a post-employment issue improperly framed as a UDRP case.

E. Complainant’s reply

Complainant refutes Respondent’s claim that Dexatel escalated prematurely, detailing at least three direct attempts to resolve the dispute before formal proceedings: phone calls on January 21, March 7, and a follow-up call during which Respondent repeatedly refused to cooperate. Bluehost confirmed that Respondent actively denied an email transfer request, blocking administrative access restoration.

Regarding billing records, Complainant submits a prior invoice from May 2023 issued to another employee, showing identical format and company address as invoices issued to Respondent, all paid by Dexatel’s corporate card. This evidences that billing contacts merely reflect administrative handlers, not legal ownership, contradicting Respondent’s ownership narrative.

Complainant rejects the technical justification for the admin email change, noting lack of supporting documentation and absence of standard IT procedures such as logging issues or notifying leadership. Instead, Respondent reassigned control quietly, withheld information upon departure, and obstructed access attempts.

Finally, the timing of the email change shortly before termination and Respondent’s ongoing refusal to assist suggest a deliberate attempt to retain control over a critical corporate asset to leverage pressure or extract value, which Complainant characterizes as an abuse of privileged access rather than a legitimate interest.

F. Respondent reply

Respondent asserts that Complainant has abused the UDRP process by filing a skeletal and speculative initial Complaint, apparently assuming no Response would be filed. Faced with a detailed Response, Complainant has improperly submitted late-stage, evolving allegations to bolster its deficient claim, undermining procedural efficiency and finality.

Regarding alleged refusals to cooperate, Respondent argues these rely solely on internal Complainant memos and screenshots without independent verification, contemporaneous written requests, or records of denial. Such one-sided evidence cannot conclusively prove obstruction and ignores Complainant’s failure to seek constructive resolution before initiating the proceeding.

Complainant’s admission that Bluehost invoices reflect administrative handlers confirms Respondent’s legitimate domain administration role during his CTO tenure, negating bad faith or concealment claims.

Respondent defends the technical rationale for the administrative contact change as a necessary step amid internal access issues, taken within the company’s informal operational framework. The expectation that a formal incident log should have been opened is hindsight bias rather than established procedure.

The bad faith allegation of retaining control to create leverage is unsupported speculation; Respondent never monetized or misused the domain, returned all credentials at termination, and Complainant’s access issues stemmed from credential recovery, not obstruction.

Finally, Respondent contends that this dispute concerns employment, equity negotiations, and corporate management issues beyond the UDRP’s intended scope, which is to combat cybersquatting, not internal company asset transitions.

Respondent respectfully requests the Panel to deny the transfer and recognize Complainant’s improper use of the UDRP to pressure a former officer in a broader legal dispute.

G. Complainant’s reply to the Additional Submission Order

In response to the Panel’s request, Complainant submitted further evidence to substantiate its claim of ownership and continuous control of the domain name dexatel.com.

Complainant asserts that the domain was acquired on March 6, 2015, by Lilit Yeghiazaryan acting on behalf of Dexatel OÜ. Complainant indicates that all invoices related to domain registration, renewal, and privacy protection services have been issued to Dexatel OÜ and paid through its corporate accounts. To further support its claims, Complainant provided:

· Historical domain management records with Bluehost, including a timeline of domain-related billing issued to Dexatel;

· Evidence of integration of the domain into the company’s IT infrastructure, including Google Workspace and PayPal Business, with related administrative accounts created using dexatel.com email addresses and invoiced to Dexatel OÜ;

· Screenshots and dated invoices confirming uninterrupted use and corporate administration of the domain and associated services.

Complainant reiterates that Respondent, a former CTO, never owned the domain. His administrative access was role-based and temporary. The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent’s alteration of admin credentials prior to his departure was unauthorized and done without knowledge or consent, resulting in the loss of access to a critical company asset.

Based on this evidence, Complainant maintains that Dexatel OÜ is the lawful owner of dexatel.com and requests that the domain be transferred accordingly.

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name dexatel.com was initially registered on May 5, 2005, and is currently held through a privacy protection service, Privacy Protect, LLC. The Panel’s review of the record indicates that the domain was listed for sale between 2011 and 2015. Based on documentation submitted in Complainant’s final submission, including a purchase confirmation from BuyDomains.com dated March 6, 2015, as well as associated invoices and domain transfer confirmations, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the domain name was acquired by or on behalf of Dexatel OÜ in March 2015.

2. Complainant, Dexatel OÜ, is the registered owner of European Union Trademark No. 018715007 for DEXATEL, filed on May 25, 2022 and registered on October 28, 2022 in Classes 9, 38, and 42.

DISCUSSION

Procedural issues

Alternative Proceedings

A criminal case is reportedly being prepared in Armenia against Respondent for unauthorized access and potential cybercrimes. However, at the time of rendering this decision, no formal legal proceedings have been initiated before any national court or competent authority.

Pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Rules, the Panel retains the discretion to suspend, terminate, or proceed with the administrative proceeding when legal proceedings are initiated concerning the domain name at issue. In the present case, no such proceedings have been formally commenced.

Accordingly, while the Panel takes note of the potential criminal proceedings being considered and the possible factual overlap with this case, it finds no procedural basis at this stage to suspend or delay its determination. The Panel therefore exercises its discretion to proceed to a decision. The administrative procedure under the Policy remains independent and shall continue in accordance with its own procedural framework.

Unsolicited supplemental submissions

The Panel has carefully considered the unsolicited supplemental submissions filed by both Parties following the initial Response, notably Complainant’s May 12, 2025 submission, Respondent’s May 15, 2025 reply, Complainant’s further submissions on the same date, and Respondent’s additional filing on May 19, 2025.

Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Supplemental Rules, the Panel may, at its sole discretion, accept or consider additional unsolicited submissions.

However, the Panel notes that the repeated submission of additional unsolicited filings, especially by Complainant, reveals a tendency to introduce new allegations and shifting claims late in the proceeding. This practice risks undermining the finality and efficiency that the UDRP process aims to protect. The Panel cautions parties against using supplemental submissions as a tactical tool to pressure opposing parties, particularly in matters that appear to extend beyond the proper scope of the UDRP, involving employment disputes and shareholder negotiations.

Accordingly, while the supplemental submissions are admitted and considered in full, the Panel remains mindful of the overall procedural fairness and the boundaries of the UDRP.

Requirements

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.

Analysis:

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the trademark DEXATEL through European Union Trade Mark No. 018715007, filed in May 2022 and registered in October 2022 for goods and services in Classes 9, 38, and 42. Although the disputed domain name dexatel.com was originally registered in 2005, prior to the filing of the Complainant’s trademark, the first requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy focuses solely on a visual and phonetic comparison between the domain name and a mark in which the Complainant has rights, irrespective of the domain name’s registration date. In line with established UDRP precedent, the timing of the acquisition of trademark rights is not relevant to this first element.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s mark DEXATEL in its entirety with only the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” (which is technically necessary and irrelevant for the analysis), is identical or at minimum confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

2. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent, a former Chief Technology Officer of Complainant, does not claim to have independently registered the domain name, nor does he claim personal ownership rights. Instead, he asserts that he had administrative access in his capacity as CTO, and that the domain name remained under his control without objection for a period after his employment ended.

However, Complainant has submitted credible evidence indicating that the domain name was purchased on behalf of Dexatel OÜ in 2015, that invoices and administrative management tools (Google Workspace, PayPal Business, Bluehost billing accounts) were set up using the company’s credentials and paid via corporate accounts, and that the domain has functioned as the company’s core digital identity since its acquisition.

Respondent’s modification of the administrative e-mail address to his personal Gmail address prior to departure, without Complainant’s knowledge or consent, and the subsequent refusal to restore access, undermine any claim to a legitimate interest. The Panel finds that Respondent’s continued control over the domain name post-termination, combined with Complainant’s documented attempts to restore administrative access, do not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The central issue in this case is whether the requirement of registration in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied, particularly in light of the fact that the domain name was originally registered in 2005, well before the Complainant acquired registered trademark rights in DEXATEL.

As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.9, where the respondent provides satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of possession, panels typically would not treat merely “formal” changes or updates to registrant contact information as a new registration. The relevant question is whether there has been a material break in the chain of possession or a shift in the underlying control of the domain name.

In the present case, the Panel considers that the unilateral change by the Respondent of the domain’s administrative email address, which effectively allowed Respondent to lock out the Complainant from accessing and managing the domain, is functionally equivalent to a change in registrant, particularly as the domain was associated with two-factor authentication linked to Respondent’s personal account. Given that ICANN-accredited registrars generally treat such a change as a registrant transfer (triggering a 60-day lock), the Panel finds that a constructive re-registration occurred when the domain was appropriated without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent.

This situation does not reflect a mere “formal” update of contact information. On the contrary, it represents a substantive and unauthorized shift in domain name possession, executed in a non-transparent manner and later leveraged to withhold access. Unlike in cases such as Mirza Juddani v. CDN Properties Incorporated, WIPO Case No. D2014-1354, where the panel declined to find a new registration due to an “unbroken chain of underlying ownership by a single entity,” the facts here establish a clear break in the chain of command and an abuse of administrative authority for personal appropriation.

The Panel concludes that Respondent’s change of the domain’s administrative credentials, his refusal to cooperate with recovery efforts, and his continued control post-employment all without any plausible legitimate interest constitute a constructive re-registration carried out in bad faith.

The evidence shows that the domain name had been used continuously for Complainant’s core business operations since 2015, and that all associated administrative, billing, and technical functions were carried out through Dexatel OÜ. Respondent’s actions disrupted this operational integrity and cannot be excused as mere technical adjustments within the scope of his former role.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) and in line with the broader principles of UDRP jurisprudence.

DECISION

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the dexatel.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Nathalie Dreyfus, Panelist

Dated: May 28, 2025

This post is 100% True!

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.