The Complainant is nVent Services GmbH, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondents are Withheld for Privacy Purposes Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Steven Curtis, Engineering Services nVent, United States of America (“United States”), and Steven Branton, Auto Sales, United States.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 22, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 23, 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 amended Complaint on July 27, 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 the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 17, 2021. The Respondents did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on August 25, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the Center received an email communication from the email address associated with the registration of the disputed domain names.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant has provided the Panel with details of its registration of its trademark, NVENT, in Switzerland, Registration No. 735329, registered on August 29, 2019; in the European Union, Registration No. 017151283, registered on May 30, 2018; and in the United States, Registration No. 5852215, registered on September 3, 2019. These registrations cover various product and service classes.
The disputed domain name
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its NVENT trademark, containing its NVENT trademark in its entirety, together with the descriptive words “engineering” and “engineers” respectively.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, in particular that the use of one of the disputed domain names to contact the Complainant’s customers demonstrates illegitimate use of the disputed domain names, aggravated by the fact that the Respondent, in each case, added a redirect to the Complainant’s own website, which the Complainant alleges demonstrates the Respondents’ fraudulent intent.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant also contends that both disputed domain names are under common control as the contact details for the registrants for both disputed domain names are the same.
B. RespondentThe Respondents did not submit a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. However, on September 10, 2021, the Center received a statement sent from the email address associated with the registration of the disputed domain names, which the Panel, in its discretion, has considered. This statement contained, in relevant part, the following message: “My computer was hacked and I have nothing to do with what are you complaining. I have never purchased these domains, etc., I have nothing to do with a boat sale, please suspend those domains.”
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issue – ConsolidationAs a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the Complaint has been filed against multiple Respondents. The consensus view when determining if consolidation is appropriate in a UDRP proceeding is whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the disputed domain names are subject to common control as the contact details provided by the Registrar, including the physical address, phone number, and email address, for the registrants of both disputed domain names are exactly. In addition, the fact that both disputed domain names redirect to the Complainant’s official website further indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. Furthermore, the Respondents have not objected to the Complainant’s consolidation request. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are subject to common control and consolidation would be fair and equitable to the Parties; the Respondents will be collectively referred to as the Respondent hereafter.
6.2 Substantive AnalysisParagraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel considers that the Complainant has demonstrated sufficient rights to its NVENT trademark for the purposes of these proceedings.
It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD “.com” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds.
In both disputed domain names, the Complainant’s NVENT trademark is clearly recognizable, and the added element following the trademark, “engineering” and “engineers” respectively, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the Panel so finds.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIt is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The disputed domain names have been used to redirect to the Complainant’s website. Furthermore, the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name
The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. For completeness, the Panel notes the statement of September 10, 2021 appears to disclaim ownership of or interest in the disputed domain names, however, the Panel need not make a finding on the veracity of such statement as no interpretation of the content therein could conceivably give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstances of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s NVENT trademark was deliberately appropriated in the confusingly similar disputed domain names, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds.
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 names,
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: September 16, 2021