The Complainant is WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Germany, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, Germany.
The Respondent is PERSEVERANCE KIN, NA, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2021. On May 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 18, 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 the Complainant on May 20, 2021 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 May 20, 2021. 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 May 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 22, 2021. The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 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 The Complainant is owner of the International Registration No. 985983 WAGO which was registered on September 6, 2018. This trademark is registered and designates a large number of countries in the Complainant’s field of business (electrical connections and electronic components). The Complainant is also the owner of various trademarks, among others: - European Union Trademark Registration 013011259 WAGO registered on October 17, 2020; The Complainant is the owner of the figurative WAGO International Registration trademark No. 453193 registered May 17, 1980. The term “WAGO” is also part of the company name of the Complainant. An affiliate of the Complainant, WAGO Kontakttechnik GmbH & Co. KG, is the owner of the domain names: The disputed domain name was registered on January 19, 2021. According to the evidence in the Complaint, the website at the disputed domain name copies the Complainant’s figurative WAGO trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is a well-known German manufacturer of components for electrical connections and electronic components for decentralized automation. The Complainant is especially well known for its cage clamp and push-wire connector products The Complainant successfully operates worldwide employing over 5,800 employees. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s marks. The additional generic element “xpress” will not be perceived by the relevant public as a difference, eligible to distinguish the Respondent or the goods and services offered under the disputed domain name from the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent was aware of the prior rights of the Complainant in the WAGO trademarks, when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not only use the Complainant’s WAGO trademark as part of the disputed domain name but even, very prominently, copies the figurative sign used and long established by the Complainant on the website under the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used for misleading e-mail communications, apparently with an attempt to commit fraudulent actions or at least to obtain information on financial data of (potential) customers. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The mere addition of the term “xpress” with the trademark WAGO does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks. The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent will lead to this ground being set forth. Refraining from submitting a formal Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. The Respondent has not registered trademarks or trade names or even personal names corresponding to the designation “wago” or the disputed domain name “wagoxpress.com”. No license or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the designation “wagoxpress.com”. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; In the Panel’s view, a finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In this case, the widespread commercial recognition of the trademark WAGO is such that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the trademark before registering the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the use of the Complainant’s figurative WAGO trademark on the website at the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent appears to have chosen the disputed domain name in order to deliberately attract Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it is a website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant. As previously mentioned, the Respondent also uses the Complainant’s figurative mark WAGO on its website under the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel is satisfied that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website. It is also evidenced that the disputed domain name is used for misleading e-mail communications, apparently with an attempt to commit fraudulent actions or at least to obtain information on financial data of potential customers. The use of the disputed domain name for phishing, supported by the Complainant’s claims and evidence, affirms a finding of bad faith (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.4). Having considered the Complainant’s submissions and in the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that on the evidence there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith within 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 Daniel Peña
- German Trademark 307 80 169 WAGO registered on June 9, 2008.
(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.
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 30, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy