ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION DEUTZ AG v. mohammedreza heidari Case No. D2025-2150 1. The Parties The Complainant is DEUTZ AG, Germany, represented by BETTINGER SCHEFFELT Partnerschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondent is mohammedreza heidari, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 2, 2025. On June 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 2, 2025, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 3, 2025, 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 June 3, 2025 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 June 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 2025. 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 a German engine manufacturer founded in 1864. Since then, the Complainant has continuously traded under the name DEUTZ, manufacturing and distributing on a worldwide basis diesel, gas and electrified engines for a wide range of applications. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for DEUTZ in various jurisdictions, including the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 158321, registered on December 17, 1951, - International Trademark Registration No. 174094, registered on January 21, 1954; - International Trademark Registration No. 452600, registered on May 6, 1980. The Complainant also owns multiple domain names containing the trademark DEUTZ such as , and . The Complainant is active on major professional and social platforms. The disputed domain name was registered on May 9, 2025. At the time that the complaint was filed it redirected to a website that contained an empty index. Currently, it does not resolve to an active website. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - The Complainant’s DEUTZ trademark is distinctive and well-known, as recognized in previous UDRP decisions, including Deutz AG v. haoxiao zhang, WIPO Case No. D2021-2298, Deutz AG v. James Pollard, WIPO Case No. D2020-1880 and Deutz AG v. Thomas Xue, WIPO Case No. D2018-0177; - The disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant’s trademark under the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “. cam”, which is one of the gTLDs with elevated levels of abuse due to its visual similarity with the gTLD “. com”. - The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s DEUTZ trademark; - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; - The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant, with the intent to trade upon the Complainant’s considerable goodwill and reputation. Passive holding, which is the case here, demonstrates bad faith. Based on the above the Complainant requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if found by the Panel, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy above. 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of the gTLD, such as “. cam”, is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel 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 name. The Respondent has
page 4 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is no indication before the Panel of any activity in relation to the disputed domain name that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name which carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel finds 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s DEUTZ trademark has been continuously and extensively used globally for many years and has, as a result, acquired considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide. In view of the well-known character of the DEUTZ trademark, it is difficult to believe that the Respondent did not have in mind the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, consisting of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. Prior panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. As to bad faith use, the evidence submitted with the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name does not point to an active website. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark as an international established mark, the composition of the disputed domain name as discussed above, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel 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 name be transferred to the Complainant. /Anna Carabelli/ Anna Carabelli Sole Panelist Date: July 18, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy