The Complainant is Siemens AG, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Germany.
The Respondent is JInsoo Yoon, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2020. On February 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 21, 2020, the Registrar 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 verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2020.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2020. 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 Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant, headquartered in Berlin and Munich, is one of the world’s largest electrical engineering and electronics companies. The company was founded more than 150 years ago.
The Complainant owns International Registration No. 637074 for the mark SIEMENS (the “Mark”). The Complainant obtained the registration on March 31, 1995. The registration covers 60 countries worldwide.
The Complainant owns and operates the website associated with the domain name
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 20, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click through links.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark and the dictionary term “finance.” The Complainant further asserts that the Complainant has not licensed nor approved the use of the Mark by the Respondent. The Complainant further notes that the Respondent does not appear to have ever been known by the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering click through links related to banking and financial services. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
The disputed domain name is composed by merely adding the dictionary term “finance” to the Mark as a suffix. It is well established that adding a dictionary term to registered service mark or trademark may result in a finding of confusing similarity. See generally Allstate Insurance Company v. Gabriel Sosa,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2381; Allstate Insurance Company v. Michal restl c/o Dynadot Registrant,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2206. When a registered trade or service mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.
The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel finds that the Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with any license or permission to use the Mark and has provided evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has thus made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Such prima facie case having been put forward, the burden of production then shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s assertion or to demonstrate bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence demonstrating any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click through links to such services as “financial calculators,” “Leasing Calculators” and “Siemens.” Moreover, the “Siemens” link resolves to another landing page featuring links, for example, to “Online Colleges”, “Car Insurance”, “Life Insurance”, “Flowers.” The Complainant’s exhibits demonstrate an improper use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent (see section 6.C below) which further underscores the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark and disputed domain name resolves to a website providing links to financial services similar to the services offered by the Complainant. The disputed domain name actually has a second level link called “Siemens” which resolves to additional click through links. Clearly, the Respondent seeks to divert unsuspecting Internet traffic for commercial purposes. Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Parihar, Mr Parihar,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1821.
Additionally, the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 4,950, an amount far exceeding the cost of registration and any out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman,
WIPO Case No. D1999-0001.
Moreover, given the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known Mark, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2020