The Complainant is Siemens AG, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Germany.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247946010, Canada / Christine Harris, United States of America (“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 September 9, 2020. On September 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 9, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 10, 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 amended Complaint on September 10, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended 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 September 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 1, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 2, 2020. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 16, 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 was founded more than 150 years ago and is a leading provider of innovative technologies and know how. The Complainant owns European Union Trade Mark registration No. 015400849, registered on May 4, 2016, for the trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS. The Complainant owns International trademark registration no. 1320512 for the trademark HEALTHINEERS, registered on March 10, 2016, and International trademark registration no. 637074 for the trademark SIEMENS, registered on March 31, 1995. The disputed domain name was registered on August 13, 2020, and does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not eliminate confusing similarity. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SIEMENS in an identical form together with the element “healthiners”, which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark HEALTHINEERS where the letter “e” is missing. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not seem to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is not in use. The Respondent must be well aware of the Complainant’s trademark as it has been in use for decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The purpose of registering the disputed domain name must be to mislead consumers and divert them to the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name contains the trademark SIEMENS and the variation of the trademark of the Complainant HEALTHINEERS, which is a case of typosquatting. The Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name in order to trade off the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and attract Internet users. The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith because passive holding indicates bad faith use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS with the letter “e” deleted. This is an act of typosquatting. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirements under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has been operating for more than a century and a half while the disputed domain name was registered only recently. The Complainant is a leading company in its field. The Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The exhibits submitted by the Complainant show that the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves is not reachable. This could be an act of passive holding, which is an indication of bad faith in similar circumstances. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: October 19, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy