ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Alimak Group Management AB v. Oleksiy Papayani, Alimak Alimakov Case No. D2024-4839 1. The Parties The Complainant is Alimak Group Management AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondents are Oleksiy Papayani, Russian Federation (the “First Respondent”), and Alimak Alimakov, Kazakhstan (the “Second Respondent”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names
and are registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2024. On November 25, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 26, 2024, 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 (N/A / Privacy Protection / Personal data) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 26, 2024, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or, alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on November 26, 2024. On November 26, 2024, the Center informed in Russian and English the Parties that the language of the registration agreements for the disputed domain names is Russian. On November 26, 2024, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit comments on the Complainant’s language request within the time limit fixed by the Center. 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”).
page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 27, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 18, 2024. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2024. 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 in Sweden in 1948. It is a provider of vertical access and working at height solutions. The Complainant is present in more than 120 countries, has 24 production and assembly facilities in 15 countries, about 3,000 employees around the world, and is listed on Nasdaq Stockholm. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for the sign ALIMAK (the “ALIMAK trademark”), including the following: − the Australian trademark ALIMAK with registration No. 262493, registered on October 6, 1972, for goods in International Class 7; - the Swedish trademark ALIMAK with registration No. 190618, registered on March 9, 1984, for goods in International Classes 6, 7, and 12; − the International trademark ALIMAK with registration No. 1125691, registered on February 13, 2012, for goods in International Class 7; and − the International trademark ALIMAK with registration No. 1622403, registered on December 12, 2019, for goods and services in International Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 35, 37, 40, 41, and 42, for multiple jurisdictions, including the Russian Federation. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name , which resolves to its official website. There is no information about the activities of the two Respondents. The Second Respondent has indicated to the Registrar a street address in the city of Almaty (the former capital of Kazakhstan) but at the same time has used an email address ending with the Russian country code Top-Level Domain. The courier service used by the Center to send the case materials to the Second Respondent indicated that the Second Respondent was unknown at the specified street address in Almaty in Kazakhstan. The disputed domain name was registered on November 19, 2024. It resolves to a parking webpage of the Registrar. The disputed domain name was registered on November 18, 2024. When an attempt is made to access it, an Internet browser displays the message “Access to alimakgroup.tech was denied”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ALIMAK trademark, its company name, and its domain name ˂alimakgroup.com>. According to the Complainant, the addition of the
page 3 dictionary word “group” does not eliminate the confusing similarity, as the ALIMAK trademark remains the dominant and distinctive part of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, because they are not commonly known by the disputed domain names, the Complainant has not given them permission to register the ALIMAK trademark as a domain name, and there is no evidence of any legitimate use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It states that the ALIMAK trademark had been registered and used by the Complainant for many years before the Respondents registered the disputed domain names, so the Respondents must have been well aware of the Complainant’s business when registering the disputed domain names. In the Complainant’s view, the Respondents’ intention is to use the disputed domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the associated websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ALIMAK trademark. According to the Complainant, it is highly likely that the disputed domain names are intended to be used for online fraud and that the Respondents are trying to take advantage of the ALIMAK trademark or to inflict damage on the Complainant’s business. The Complainant adds that the Respondents have submitted false information to the Registrar at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. It notes that an online search for the name of the Second Respondent returns no results, so this is a fictional name that was made up to create an appearance of legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. First procedural issue – Consolidation of multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to two nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against them pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Complainant alleges that the registrants of the two disputed domain names are the same entity or are under common control. In support of this allegation, the Complainant notes that the two disputed domain names similarly incorporate the Complainant’s ALIMAK trademark and were registered on two consecutive days with the same Registrar. The Complainant adds that the consolidation of the Respondents would be procedurally efficient, fair and equitable to all Parties. The registrants of the two disputed domain name did not submit any comments or objections to the Complainant’s consolidation request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the two disputed domain names share the elements “alimak” and “group”, which makes them very similar to each other, to the distinctive ALIMAK trademark and to the Complainant’s company name (see section 6.3.A below), and the Registrar has confirmed that they were registered on two consecutive days. The registrants of the two disputed domain names are nominally
page 4 different, but the name and address indicated to the Registrar by the Second Respondent appear to be incorrect. In the absence of any allegation or evidence pointing to a different conclusion, the above supports a finding that it is more likely than not that the two disputed domain names are under common control. As regards fairness and equity, none of the Parties has expressed any concerns, and the Panel sees no reason why the consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any of them. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants in a single proceeding. 6.2. Second procedural issue - Language of the proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. In support of this request, the Complainant notes that English is commonly used in international business and communication and would be considered as neutral for the Parties in the present proceeding. The Complainant notes that the two disputed domain names include the English language words “group” and “tech”, which suggests that the Respondent has knowledge of this language. According to the Complainant, conducting the proceedings in English would promote efficiency and timely resolution, while requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint in Russian would entail significant additional costs and delay in the proceedings. The Respondents did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding and did not object to the Complainant’s language request. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel accepts the arguments advanced by the Complainant, and determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.3. Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the ALIMAK trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the ALIMAK trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ALIMAK trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
page 5 Although the addition of other terms (here, “group”) may affect the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel considers that the addition of this term does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the ALIMAK trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel therefore finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALIMAK trademark and its company name, both of which had been used for many years at the time of registration of the disputed domain names, which was made in two consecutive days by the Respondents who appear to be under common control. The disputed domain names are inactive and the Respondents have not provided any plausible explanation for their registration and intended use. The name indicated by the Second Respondent to the Registrar is similar to the disputed domain names, but there is no evidence that this is a real personal name that could potentially support a finding of legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Given the associated false address provided, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Second Respondent’s name was merely a fraudulent attempt at legitimizing the registration of the disputed domain name. Taking all the above into account, the Panel finds no basis to accept that the Respondents have registered the disputed domain names for any legitimate purpose unrelated to the Complainant, and finds that it is more likely than not that they have registered them to target the Complainant and its ALIMAK trademark. This supports the prima facie case made by the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondents do not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant’s ALIMAK trademark predates the registration date of the disputed domain names by decades and has been extensively used in many countries. The Respondents have not submitted a Response and have not brought forward any arguments why the registration of the disputed domain names
page 6 should be considered as having been done in good faith. The Panel therefore accepts as more likely than not that the Respondents has registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and company name and with the intention of taking advantage of their goodwill. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness, long term use, and reputation of the Complainant’s ALIMAK trademark, the composition of the disputed domain names, which appear to have been created to target the Complainant’s trademark and company name, and the failure of the Respondents to submit a Response or to provide any evidence of any contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain names. These circumstances suggest that the Respondents’ passive holding of the disputed domain names is in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: December 30, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy