ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER PANEL DECISION Građanski Nogometni Klub “Dinamo” v. Nermin Sefić, GNK Dinamo Ltd. Case No. DEU2025-0023 1. The Parties The Complainant is Građanski Nogometni Klub “Dinamo”, Croatia, represented by Hraste & Partners Law Firm, Croatia. The Respondent is Nermin Sefić, GNK Dinamo Ltd., Croatia, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is Namecheap, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2025. On September 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 2025, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 24, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registry, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 25, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 1, 2025. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3)(a), the due date for Response was October 21, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on October 19, 2025.
page 2 The Center verified that the Response satisfied the formal requirements of the ADR Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on October 21, 2025, and the Respondent made a supplemental filing in reply on October 22, 2025. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of the most prominent and successful football clubs in Croatia. It is also well-known internationally due to its regular participation in “UEFA” Champions League and Europa League competitions. Since at least 2011, the Complainant has extensively used the mark GNK DINAMO, an abbreviation of the Complainant’s full name: “Građanski nogometni klub “Dinamo” (Citizens’ Football Club “Dinamo”). The Complainant owns Croatian registered trade mark No. Z20081114 for DINAMO, registered on February 4, 2009, in classes 3-4, 6, 12-14, 18-22, 24, 26-27, 32-34, and 43. The Complainant operates a website at “www.gnkdinamo.hr”. On May 12, 2023, the controller of the Respondent (included throughout in references to “the Respondent”) incorporated a Croatian company called GNK ASG d.o.o., under registration number 081512375. The company was described as “a limited liability company for sports, tourism and tourist agency”. The Respondent registered the domain name on May 18, 2023. On November 8, 2023, the Respondent was incorporated in Colorado under identification number 20238180649. The Respondent registered the domain names and on December 15, 2023 (“the 2023 Domain Names”). As of August 9, 2024, the domain name resolved to a simple webpage consisting simply of a box with the Respondent’s name and contact information plus a “GNK Dinamo d.o.o.” text link (“Webpage 1”). On June 30, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name as well as the domain names , and (“the 2025 Domain Names”). (The 2023 Domain Names and the 2025 Domain Names are hereafter collectively referred to as “the Related Domains1“.) On or around July 11, 2025, the Respondent registered a foreign (Zagreb) branch of the Second Respondent with the Zagreb Commercial Court under registration number 081663054. 1 These domain names are subject to a separate decision by the same Panel. See Građanski Nogometni Klub “Dinamo” v. Nermin Sefic, GNK DINAMO Ltd. WIPO Case No. D2025-3821.
page 3 On July 12, 2025, the Respondent applied for European Union trade mark for GNK DINAMO, application No. 019217073, in classes 25, 35 and 41 (“the EUTM Application”). The Complainant filed a notice of opposition on August 19, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the Respondent emailed the Complainant (“the Respondent’s First Email”) with the subject line: “Open proposal for cooperation in the field of sport, investment, and development of digital identity”. The email: - claimed to have been written “in a spirit of openness and sporting fair play, as the business entity GNK Dinamo Ltd., incorporated in the United States of America with an active branch in Croatia” with a mission “focused on investment in sport, development of sustainable infrastructure, and strengthening the community through responsible business practices”; - expressed “our deep respect for your tradition, supporters, and all that GNK “Dinamo” represents in Croatian sport”; - stated that while, it was not connected with the Complainant, due to the similarity of names, the Respondent felt the need for “a friendly and constructive dialogue”; - stated that the Respondent wished to draw attention in a meeting to “certain practices that may deviate from usual and legally prescribed procedures” that may in future create “serious challenges”; - stated that the Respondent was “highly interested in sponsoring sports activities” and was already signing, or was about to sign, various general sponsorship agreements under which clubs change their names, and that it was preparing a major EU sports-related campaign “in which our name will be prominently positioned”; - warned that if clear parameters were not agreed, there could be confusion in the marketplace “particularly in connection with our large campaign and the opening of web shops, as well as our presence in sports stores and other clubs”; - claimed that “we do not wish anyone to equate your association with our company”; and - claimed that GNK Dinamo Ltd “and related entities” had achieved impressive results including revenue exceeding EUR 1 billion in 2024, confirmed in tax returns. The Respondent has produced an alleged letter of intent (“the Basketball LOI”) dated July 24, 2025, referring to an intended sponsorship agreement whereby the Respondent would license a women’s basketball club to “add the Company’s name to the Club’s name”, which would thereby become “Ženski košarkaški klub Trešnjevka Dinamo Ltd”. The Respondent has provided a screenshot of a second webpage (“Webpage 2”) to which it says it resolved the disputed domain name and the Related Domains. The screenshot is undated but the Panel notes that it refers to the Basketball LOI, indicating that this version of the site was launched no earlier than July 24, 2025. The page is headed “GNK Dinamo Ltd” and entitled “Strategic investments in sports, tourism, infrastructure and technology”. The page includes following content: - corporate information about the “Parent Company – Colorado, USA” and the “Zagreb Branch”; - statistics including alleged revenue of EUR 1,192 billion in 2024, alleged assets totalling some EUR 431 million and alleged revenue of the Croatian entity of EUR 504 million from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025; - the following statement under the heading “Sponsorship”: “We are a proud name sponsor of ŽKK Trešnjevka Dinamo Ltd. under a five-year sponsorship agreement”; - a link to a “B2B sports equipment catalog” pdf for 2026/2027; and - in the footer, button links to the Related Domains. On July 28, 2025, the Respondent emailed the Complainant (“the Respondent’s Second Email”) with the subject line: “Request for a meeting to align with legal regulations and discuss possible future cooperation”. The email: - was written “both as an active member of the GNK ‘“Dinamo’“ Association and as Director of the international company GNK Dinamo Ltd”;
page 4 - referred to previous unanswered correspondence and stated that the purpose of the letter was to arrange “a meeting […] to establish communication, with the latest possible meeting date being August 6, 2025”; - complained that due to lack of communication with the Complainant’s marketing department, it had been impossible “to finalize a sponsorship offer to the club, which was still presented and remains available through your intermediary in the amount of EUR 1,000,000, sent in June 2025”; - set out the following reasons why the Respondent sought alignment with the Complainant: “Business Protection • We are preparing an EU campaign worth several million euros • Partners in eight European countries require clarity regarding names • Similarity of names could jeopardize our contracts Legal Certainty • Clear distinction between the Association and the corporate entity is necessary • International investors demand legal clarity • EU regulations require unambiguous trade designations Market Position • Your use of the name causes confusion among customers • We are also opening webshops, which could further increase confusion”; - asserted that the Complainant’s use of the name “GNK Dinamo” without quotation marks was both identical to the Respondent’s name and inconsistent with the Complainant’s own “Statute”, which allegedly required quotation marks around the word “Dinamo”; - sought the Complainant’s consistent use of the name “GNK “Dinamo”“ (i.e., with quotation marks) in future; and - concluded: “[s]hould we not receive confirmation of the meeting by the stated date, we will consider that there is no interest in dialogue on your part, and in good faith, we will be forced to take unilateral measures”. When reviewed by the Panel, the disputed domain name resolved to the same Webpage 2 mentioned above, with the addition of the following in the footer: “Disclaimer: GNK DINAMO Ltd. is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the GNK “DINAMO” non-profit association”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the ADR Rules for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - the Respondent represents a wholesale appropriation of the Complainant’s well-known distinctive identifiers without any indicator of legitimate parallel use and was clearly intended to mislead consumers; - the reactive nature of the Respondent’s opposed EUTM Application, filed well after registration of the disputed domain name and emergence of this dispute, indicates that the Respondent was not commonly known by the Respondent; - the Complainant’s marks significantly predate any rights claimed by the Respondent;
page 5 - the goods and services covered in the EUTM Application overlap with the Complainant’s core business operations, showing that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s longstanding rights; - the Respondent’s Second Email demanding EUR 1 million “for sponsorship” and making various threats against the Complainant further confirms bad faith; - the Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names incorporating the Complainant’s mark is a textbook example of cybersquatting; - the Respondent’s has set out to block/disrupt the Complainant’s business by setting up barriers to the Complainant’s communications with fans and commercial partners and by announcing its intention to use the disputed domain name for a shop offering goods related to those of the Complainant; - given the Complainant’s substantial prominence within European football markets, Internet users encountering the Respondent are likely to assume that they are accessing a website officially connected with the Complainant; and - the disputed domain name was designed to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, reinforced by use of the “.eu” Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix, denoting the European market where the Complainant maintains its highest commercial profile; and - the disputed domain name constitutes passive holding in bad faith insofar as they have not been actively used. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the ADR Rules for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent contends that: - before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name and made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services; - the Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith; - the disputed domain name resolved only to a neutral corporate landing page with no ads, affiliate links, e-commerce or “official club” claims, and the Related Domains were listed transparently in the footer; - Google Search Console information shows that there were no clicks on the Related Domains, evidencing a lack of confusion-based traffic or monetization; - the Respondent consolidated the disputed domain name and the 2025 Domain Names at standard prices following the earlier unavailability of the “.com”, not for blocking or resale; - the Respondent’s public presence via the domain name registered May 18, 2023, predates the dispute; - corporate extract and group financial statements confirm real operations; - the Respondent and its affiliate GNK ASG d.o.o. operate under “gnk” corporate names and have engaged in documented sponsorship naming activity, namely the Basketball LOI relating to “ŽKK Trešnjevka Dinamo Ltd”; - the EUTM Application and 2026/27 B2B catalogue show a sector-standard commercial trajectory, and the Respondent functions as a neutral corporate hub for EU-facing communications consistent with that plan; - to minimise confusion, the Respondent uses “.eu” specific “multilingual/phonetic safeguards” and deliberately avoids any “official posture”; - the Complainant is a non-profit association territorially limited to Zagreb, whereas the Respondent is a for-profit global company, whose pan-EU, neutral corporate landing page does not overlap with Complainant’s limited remit or mislead users; - the Respondent’s First Email Respondent proposed coexistence/demarcation without asking for transfer of domain names; the price of EUR 1,000,000 referenced in the Respondent’s Second Email was a business sponsorship, not a domain price; - there is no disruption of a competitor: the Respondent is not a men’s football club and does not compete with the Complainant, and the Basketball LOI evidences the Respondent’s sponsorship/investment focus;
page 6 - there is no evidence that the Complainant attempted to register the disputed domain name before the Respondent - the Complainant only sought transfer after the Respondent had established a neutral “.eu” presence, suggesting that the Complainant is attempting to block a lawful commercial rollout rather than to protect an endangered right; and - a forced transfer of the disputed domain name would over-extend the Complainant’s local, non-profit remit, which includes use of the national “.hr” ccTLD (), into an EU-wide namespace, contrary to proportionality and the role of “.eu” in enabling a lawful, transparent EU-wide business presence. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues A. Proof of Authority The Respondent objects that the Complainant’s counsel has not provided a power of attorney or equivalent proof of authority to initiate this proceeding or to seek transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent seeks an order that the Complainant provide proof of authority, evidence of “.eu” eligibility and the explicit consent of any proposed transferee and that, pending such proof, the Panel should accord reduced evidentiary weight to, or disregard, the Complainant’s submissions. The Panel rejects the Respondent’s contention. The Respondent has not pointed to any specific requirement that representatives in “.eu” Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings file proof of authority. In the absence of any reason to doubt its authority, the Panel is prepared to accept that the law firm filing the Complaint has been duly authorised to do so by the Complainant, as well as to request/consent to transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant if successful. As regards “.eu” eligibility, see the footnote in Section 7 below. B. Supplemental Filings As mentioned in Section 3 above, each party has made an unsolicited supplemental filing. The ADR Rules, Paragraph B(7)(d) give the panel authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. Paragraph B(7)(c) requires the Panel to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. Panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response, e.g., owing to some “exceptional” circumstance. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition2 (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.6. In this case, the purpose of the Complainant’s filing is to inform the Panel about injunctive relief granted by the Commercial Court in Zagreb against the Respondent. The Respondent’s supplemental filing contests the Complainant’s characterisation of the court order. However, the Panel does not consider that the court order is relevant as the Panel is not concerned with wider intellectual property infringement but simply the presence or absence of legitimate interests/bad faith under the ADR Rules. Accordingly, the Panel declines to admit either filing. 2 Although WIPO Overview 3.0 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity between the UDRP and the ADR Rules, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the ADR Rules diverge from the UDRP.
page 7 The Complainant has also requested confirmation that it “be allowed to submit a reply” to the Response. However, the ADR Rules do not permit a general right of reply. If the Complainant wished to file an additional supplemental filing, then it ought to have put forward exceptional circumstances justifying such a filing as indicated above. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law The Complainant has established rights in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i), based on (a) its Croatian registered trade mark for DINAMO and (b) unregistered trade mark rights in the mark GNK DINAMO arising from the Complainant’s extensive and longstanding use of that mark, including within the EU. The entirety of both marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to those marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms to the DINAMO mark (“gnk”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the DINAMO mark for the purposes of the ADR Rules. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1), has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(e) provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Respondent argues that it has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraphs B(11)(1) and (2) of the Policy. The Respondent relies in particular on the names, and alleged activities, of the Respondent (GNK DINAMO Ltd) and a related entity - GNK ASG d.o.o., both incorporated within a six-month period in 2023. However, as discussed in detail under the third element below, the Panel considers that the circumstances, including the Complainant’s long-standing use of the distinctive mark GNK DINAMO, the Parties’ location, and in the Panel’s opinion the lack of any, let alone a credible, alternative explanation by the Respondent, create a strong reference that the Respondent selected the terms “gnk” and “gnk dinamo” for the disputed domain name, the Related Domains, and its corporate names, by reference to the Complainant’s mark.
page 8 As to GNK ASG d.o.o., and assuming that the Respondent is entitled to rely on the name/activities of this related entity, the Panel notes that the evidence supporting its alleged activities consists principally of four articles in the Croatian business press, two of which are dated June 2025, and the other two dated October 2025. None of these articles have been translated from Croatian, although others have been. Nonetheless, the Panel has reviewed the articles using an online translation tool and notes that they mainly concern the “rapid growth” of GNK ASG d.o.o, principally in relation to sports tracking software. Furthermore, the June 19, 2025, article states: “In addition, the name of the company GNK ASG is associated with Dinamo (a civic football club), and one of the related companies is the aforementioned American GNK Dinamo ltd. At Maksimirska 128, they deny any connection with these companies. Sefić also confirms this, but admits that he is a fan.” The article also states: “Three years ago, Sefić was among the group of investors who sent a letter to Dinamo, the Prime Minister and the Mayor stating that they were willing to invest their own funds in the construction of the stadium.” In the Panel’s view, these articles do not assist the Respondent. First, while they refer to apparent commercial use of terms “gnk” / “gnk asg”, they do not evidence any bona fide use by the Respondent of “gnk dinamo”. Even if the Respondent had put forward a credible and legitimate explanation for its adoption of “gnk”, i.e., independently of the Complainant, that would be unlikely of itself to justify/legitimise the addition of the word “dinamo” in the disputed domain names, thus exactly replicating the Complainant’s highly distinctive mark. Second, the above comments appear to demonstrate not only that the writer associated the name of both GNK ASG d.o.o and the Respondent with the Complainant, indicative of a likelihood of confusion between the respective names, but also that the Respondent’s controller was a fan of the Complainant and a potential investor in its stadium, reinforcing the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant. The Respondent also produces a batch of documents in Croatian said to comprise public financial statements relating to the “group’s activities”, and mainly appearing to concern GNK ASG d.o.o. However, in the absence of relevant supporting documents linking such alleged activities/turnover with the term “gnk dinamo”, the Panel does not consider that these documents constitute clear and sufficient evidence that the Respondent has engaged in any, or any particular level of, bona fide activity under the term “gnk dinamo” such that it has become commonly known by the term “gnk dinamo” so as to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the ADR Rules. As regards the Basketball LOI, the Panel first notes that the Respondent has not also produced the allegedly intended “Sponsorship Agreement and the Annex to the Sponsorship Agreement attached hereto (which form an integral part of this Binding Letter of Intent)”. While the Respondent has provided evidence of use of the name “ŽKK Trešnjevka Dinamo Ltd” by the basketball team, the alleged licensed name includes only the word “dinamo” from the Respondent’s name - i.e., without “gnk”. Accordingly, this arrangement is by no means evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, which is prefaced by “gnk”. As regards Webpage 2 (see description in Section 4 above), this consists largely of corporate information about the Second Respondent and its Zagreb branch plus financial statistics, including alleged revenue of EUR 1,192 billion. Notwithstanding the vast turnover allegedly associated with this business, the only actual activity mentioned is a reference to being the “proud name sponsor” of the basketball team mentioned above and a link to a “B2B sports equipment catalog” for 2026/7. The latter is an undated PDF document headed “SPORTS EQUIPMENT CATALOG / 2026/7 LAUNCH”, containing a front page with the Respondent’s contact details followed by long list of unbranded sporting products without prices. In the Panel’s view, this undated document alone does not constitute evidence of bona fide use, or demonstrations to use, the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.
page 9 The Respondent asserts that Webpage 2 is a “neutral corporate profile of Respondent’s investment activities”. While it is true that, as the Respondent asserts, Webpage 2 does not contain “official club” claims or advertising, nonetheless, to the Panel, the page presents more as a defensive move vis-à-vis the Complainant than a bona offering of goods or services. Indeed, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided any evidence demonstrating that it launched Webpage 2 before receiving notice of the dispute in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(e)(1). In any case, as mentioned in Section 4 above, Webpage 2 refers to the Basketball LOI, indicating that this version of the site was launched no earlier than July 24, 2025, i.e., after the Respondent first emailed the Complainant. (See further under the third element below.) Nor does the EUTM application assist the Respondent. Not only is it merely a pending application rather than a registered mark but, in the Panel’s view, the overall circumstances, including its timing 10 days before the Respondent’s First Email (see further under the third element below), raise serious questions as to the motive behind the application (which may have been filed primarily to obstruct the Complainant’s exercise of its rights under the ADR Rules). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.12.2. The Panel would add that nothing turns on the extent of overlap between the specifications of the EUTM Application and the Complainant’s marks, which has been a matter of contention of between the parties. For the above reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent has failed to supply credible evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the factors enumerated in the ADR Rules, or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1), has been established. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Although, the Complainant is only required to establish either the second or third element of the ADR Rules, the Panel would add that the Complainant would also have succeeded under the third element for the reasons given below. The ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(f), set out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered or used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel will first consider the circumstances surrounding the Respondent registration of the 2023 Domain Names, because this has a bearing on the Respondent’s later registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes the following. First, it is not in dispute that the Complainant, a Croation football club, has made extensive use of the mark GNK DINAMO as an abbreviation of its official name, since 2011. Second, as shown in the chronology in Section 4 above, between May and December 2023, the Respondent: incorporated GNK ASG d.o.o., in Croatia; registered the domain name ; incorporated GNK DINAMO Ltd in Colorado; and registered the domain names and (“the 2023 Events”). Third, the Respondent has not denied that it was aware of the Complainant at the time of the 2023 Events. Nor indeed could the Respondent credibly have done so. Not only is the Respondent located in Zagreb, like the Complainant, and purportedly involved in the sports industry but, in the Respondent’s First Email, the Respondent expressed “our deep respect for your tradition, supporters, and all that GNK “Dinamo” represents in Croatian sport”. In the Respondent’s Second Email, the Respondent even stated that it was an “active member” of the Complainant’s association.
page 10 Fourth, and crucially, the Respondent has nowhere explained exactly why it selected the terms “gnk dinamo”, or “gnk” on its own. Fifth, the Respondent claims that it registered the 2023 Domain Names as “contingency variants” because “” was then unavailable, but the Respondent does not explain why the Respondent chose to register one of those domain names in the top-level domain (“TLD”) “.club”, which term is strongly associated with the Complainant, as a football club. The Panel considers that the above matters, especially the lack of any, let alone a credible, alternative, explanation by the Respondent, create a strong inference that the Respondent selected the 2023 Domain Names, and indeed the name of the Respondent, by reference to the Complainant’s mark. The record is relatively silent from the date of registration of the 2023 Domain Names until the following burst of activity in mid-2025: - June 30: the Respondent registered the 2025 Domain Names including the disputed domain name; - July 11: the Respondent registered the Zagreb branch; - July 12: the Respondent filed the EUTM Application; - July 22: the Respondent sent the Respondent’s First Email to the Complainant; - July 24: the date of the alleged Basketball LOI; and - July 28; the Respondent sent the Respondent’s Second Email to the Complainant. Given the above context and timeline, as well as their content, the Panel is not convinced by the Respondent’s claim that its two emails to the Complainant (see details in Section 4 above) were a reasonable approach to discuss “coexistence/demarcation” and “business sponsorship”. First, citing a turnover of some EUR 1 billion, the Respondent indicated that it already operated a substantial business by reference to its name, whereas, in this proceeding, the Respondent has demonstrated little such activity – only the alleged Basketball LOI regarding licensing of the word “dinamo”, was signed between the dates of the Respondent’s two emails. Second, notwithstanding its apparent lack of meaningful genuine use of the term “gnk dinamo”, not to mention the Complainant’s 10-year plus prior use thereof, the Respondent implausibly complained that the Complainant’s use of the Complainant’s GNK DINAMO mark was confusing the Respondent’s customers and that the Complainant’s alleged failure to include quotation marks around the word “Dinamo” in accordance with its Statue may cause unspecified “serious challenges”. Third, the Respondent’s unilateral “sponsorship offer” requiring payment of EUR 1 million - accompanied by threats of “unilateral measures” if a meeting were not held by a specified date and by warnings of potential confusion arising from the Respondent’s alleged intended large-scale sports retail activities and campaign - does not look to the Panel like a normal business sponsorship proposal. It is correct that, as the Respondent asserts, the emails do not seek a price for the domain names or even mention them. However, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the 2025 Domain Names, including the disputed domain name, as well as the important , relatively soon before the Respondent’s First Email. The Panel is not convinced by the Respondent’s claim that it merely registered the 2025 Domain Names for consolidation purposes. Also, while the Respondent invokes the “transparent” listing of the disputed domain name and the Related Domains on Webpage 2, the inclusion of separate button links to each of the domain names could also be seen as a message to the Complainant regarding the extent of the Respondent’s “gnkdinamo” domain name holdings. As mentioned in Section 4 above, the reference to the Basketball LOI on Webpage 2 indicates that this website was only launched on or after July 24, 2025, i.e., following the Respondent’s First Email. The disclaimer in the footer of Webpage 2 does not assist the Respondent. Not only is this a belated addition, and far from prominent but, in any case, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure bad faith where, as here, the overall circumstances point to bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent’s use of a disclaimer can be seen as an admission that users may be confused. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.7.
page 11 The Panel also rejects the following additional arguments by the Respondent: - that the Complainant-seeking traffic to the websites at the Related Domains was minimal - the Panel does not consider that anything turns on this, given the other circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name; - the alleged existence of “multilingual/phonetic safeguards” in the form of audio recordings of people pronouncing the term “gnk dinamo” in different languages – there is no evidence that these have been deployed on any website and, in any case, the Panel finds their exact relevance unclear; - that the Complainant is a non-profit association territorially limited to Zagreb, whereas the Respondent is a for-profit global company, whose pan-EU, neutral corporate landing page does not overlap with the Complainant’s limited remit or mislead users – this a somewhat artificial characterisation of the Complainant, a football club well-known in Croatia and throughout the EU and, contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, and aside from the questionable “neutrality” of the page as discussed above, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent’s adoption and use of the Complainant’s highly distinctive name, particularly in the sporting industry, will indeed generate customer confusion; and - that a forced transfer of the disputed domain name would over-extend the Complainant’s local, non-profit remit, into an EU-wide namespace, contrary to proportionality and the role of “.eu” in enabling a lawful, transparent EU-wide business presence – again, this is an unduly restrictive characterisation of the extent of the Complainant’s business but, in any event, the Panel is not concerned with the public policy behind the “.eu” domain name regime, but simply with whether or not the Respondent registered and/or used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In conclusion. based on the evidence before the Panel and for all the reasons given above, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in conjunction with the Related Domains as part of an elaborate scheme to unfairly target the Complainant’s mark for financial gain and that the foregoing constitutes registration and/or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds the third element of the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1), has been established. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant3. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: November 21, 2025 3 (i) The decision shall be implemented by the Registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the Parties, unless the Respondent initiates court proceedings in a Mutual Jurisdiction, as defined in Paragraph A(1) of the ADR Rules. (ii) As the Complainant has provided evidence that it is established in Croatia, a Member State of the European Union, it satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/517. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to request the transfer of the disputed domain name.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy