The Complainant is SEW-Eurodrive GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by PETILLION, Belgium.
The Respondent is Manzoomeh Negaran, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 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 31, 2021. On March 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 3, 2021, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 2, 2021. No Response having been submitted, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2021. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on May 14, 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 a German manufacturing company operating in the technology sector. It is a leading player in drive-based automation. It was founded in 1931 under the name “Süddeutsche Elektromotoren Werke” and has for many years traded under the acronym “SEW”. It has numerous trade mark registrations covering that acronym including by way of example: European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 003454873 SEW (word) registered on May 2, 2005 (application filed on October 28, 2003) for various goods and services in classes 7, 9, 37 and 42. European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 002726248 SEW-EURODRIVE (figurative) registered on November 20, 2003 (application filed on June 6, 2002) for various goods in classes 7 and 9. This mark features the word “SEW” in large upper case letters underlined by the word “EURODRIVE” in smaller upper case letters. The Complainant operates its main website connected to the domain name, According to IRNIC the Domain Name was first created on October 30, 2017, but not registered in the name of the Respondent until October 22, 2019. The Panel has no information as to the identity of the registrant of the Domain Name prior to October 22, 2019. The Domain Name is connected to what appears to the Panel to be a Persian language website making prominent use of the Complainant’s SEW and SEW-EURODRIVE trade marks. In all but one case the SEW-EURODRIVE figurative mark features in the mis-spelt form SEW-EURODRAVE. The website appears to be offering for supply the Complainant’s gear boxes and related machinery. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEW registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and While the Policy is not in all respects identical to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the two policies are sufficiently similar for it to be useful to refer where appropriate to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is identical to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s SEW registered trade mark followed by “co” (the universally known abbreviation of the dictionary word, “company”) and the “.ir” country code Top-Level Domain identifier. Section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0 explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP and includes the following passage: “While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” The same is true of the position under the Policy. The Complainant’s registered trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant recites the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of which if found by the Panel to be present shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of this element of the Policy, and contends that none of them is applicable. The Complainant asserts that it has no affiliation with the Respondent and has not granted the Respondent any authority to use its trade marks. The Complainant has produced evidence, unchallenged by the Respondent, to show that the Respondent is falsely representing itself on its website to be an importer and reseller of the Complainant’s products and is making liberal use of its SEW trade mark and misspellings of the Complainant’s figurative trade mark (see section 4 above). The Complainant contends that it is not currently doing any business with Iran and is unable to do so given the embargoes placed upon trade with Iran by the United States of America and the European Union. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; that self-evidently the Respondent does not have a name corresponding to the Domain Name; and that there is nothing legitimate noncommercial or fair about the use that the Respondent is making of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy; in other words, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has chosen not to answer the Complainant’s contentions and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which it could be said that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered or Used in Bad Faith In the absence of any challenge to the Complainant’s contentions, in the view of the Panel the overwhelming probability is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which it is using it, namely to represent falsely that it is an importer and reseller in Iran of the Complainant’s products, images of which appear on the Respondent’s website alongside the misspellings of the Complainant’s registered figurative trade mark referred to in section 4 above. The Complainant suggests that the Respondent may have registered the Domain Name for other fraudulent purposes such as “phishing”, but the Panel has insufficient information on that to come to a concluded view. Nonetheless, the Panel is satisfied on the unchallenged evidence before him that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which it is using it, a purpose which cannot on any basis be anything other than fraudulent. The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name, Tony Willoughby
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy