Complainant is Dornbracht AG & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben PartG mbB, Germany.
Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2021. On March 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 2021, 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 Complainant on March 18, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 23, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 2021. 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 Complainant was founded in 1950 and is a German manufacturer and distributor of high quality faucets for bathrooms and kitchen. Complainant owns, inter alia, the German trademark DORNBRACHT no. 2005619, registered on October 28, 1991, in International Classes 11 and 21 and the European Union Registration DORNBRACHT no. 000829572, registered on October 14, 1999 in International Classes 6, 9, 11, 20 and 21. Complainant also holds and uses the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links linked to further websites offering products of Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DORNBRACHT trademark in which Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the word “professional” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use this trademark. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it is obvious that Respondent had knowledge of both Complainant and its trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name since the content of the Internet page posted under the disputed domain name offers faucets manufactured by Complainant’s competitors. Moreover, the website posted under the disputed domain contains wording stating that the disputed domain name may be for sale. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that Complainant owns a trademark registration for its DORNBRACHT trademark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the DORNBRACHT trademark. The addition of the word “professional” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark DORNBRACHT. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant states it has not authorized Respondent to use the trademark DORNBRACHT. The Panel does not see any contrary evidence from the record. In the view of the Panel, Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, Respondent failed to provide any explanations as to any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it is a longstanding manufacturer of faucets for bathrooms and kitchen. In the view of the Panel, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s trademark, noting the composition of the disputed domain name, and since it used it to offer PPC links to faucets and related products. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with links mentioning competing products and leading to websites of competitors of Claimant. The Panel therefore concludes that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of products or on its web site (paragraph 4 b (iv) of the Policy). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. 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 Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: May 17, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy