The Complainant is GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft, Germany, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, Germany.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “US”) / Haila Ata, GEA Group, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2020. On June 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 29, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 29, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 30, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to 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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 22, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 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 Background The Complainant is a large global supplier for the food processing industry and a wide range of other process industries. In 2015, the Complainant generated revenues in excess of EUR 4.6 billion, more than 70 percent of which came from the food sector. The Complainant employed about 17,500 people worldwide as of December 31, 2015. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the designation GEA that predate the Domain Name registration by the Respondent, such as International trademark registration Nos. 1341160 (registered on September 2, 2015) and 1001917 (registered on October 23, 2008), and US trademark Nos. 79068513 (registered on November 30, 2010) and 79205934 (registered on October 16, 2018). In addition, the Complainant has a large number of domain names incorporating GEA. The Domain Name was created on May 26, 2020. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a web page by the Registrar informing that the Domain Name was suspended by the Registrar. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the trademark GEA is incorporated in the Domain Name, and the addition of the word “global” does not prevent confusing similarity. The Complainant argues that the there is no evidence of any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has registered trademarks or trade names or personal names corresponding to GEA or the Domain Name. The Respondent has no license or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant believes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark GEA at the time of the registration of the Domain Name. At the time of the Complaint, the Complainant claims the Respondent redirected the Domain Name to the Complainant’s webpage. The Complainant suspects that the Domain Name has been used for setting up emails that in turn may be used for spamming or phishing. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark GEA. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of “global”. The addition does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.org”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that there is no evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names or even personal names corresponding to the designation “gea” or the Domain Name. The Respondent has no license or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant claims the Respondent was redirecting the Domain Name to the Complainant’s webpage at the time of submission of the Complaint. Based on the case file, is seems like the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in an attempt to attract confused visitors to its website by using the GEA trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is well known, the Respondent has failed to respond to the, the Respondent has concealed its identity, and the Panel cannot see any plausible good faith use of the Domain Name on the Respondent’s hand. Furthermore, the use of the Complainant’s own name in the registration details of the Domain Name was likely intended to confuse Internet users seeking to confirm the authenticity of the Domain Name, and supports a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy