ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v. Gholamreza Kianmehr Case No. DIR2024-0014 1. The Parties The Complainant is Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented Taylor Wessing LLP, Germany. The Respondent is Gholamreza Kianmehr, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2024. On October 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 2024, IRNIC 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 25, 2024, 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 October 28, 2024. Hard copies of the Complaint and the amended Complaint were received by the Center on October 29, 2024, and November 15, 2024, respectively. The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended 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 November 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 8, 2024. On December 9, 2024, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
page 2 The Center appointed Vincent Denoyelle as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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 is a German headquartered company that manufactures and sells components, systems and solutions in the fields of electrical engineering, electronics, and automation. The Complainant operates in over one hundred countries. The Complainant owns many PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark registrations, in several countries around the world, including the following: - International Trade Mark Registration PHOENIX CONTACT, registered on October 28, 2011, under number 1125907 designating Iran (Islamic Republic of). The Complainant or one of its subsidiaries is the registrant of the domain name since February 20, 1996. The only information available on the Respondent is as it appears in the registrant and contact information disclosed by IRNIC. The Respondent would seem to be an individual based in Iran (Islamic Republic of). The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 28, 2024. The disputed domain name does not currently point to an active website, but it used to point to a page “under design” reproducing the Complainant's trade mark and logo with associated pages referring to the Complainant's products. 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark. In terms of the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the Complainant merely contends that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name are infringing its trade mark PHOENIX CONTACT. Turning to registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant considers that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark. The only additional element is the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) extension of Iran (Islamic Republic of), i.e., “.ir”. As a standard requirement of domain name registration, this element may be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the irDRP. See, for example, 7-Eleven, Inc. v Seyed Amir Shahab Soleimani, WIPO Case No. DIR2020-0010. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in irDRP 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 often impossible 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 disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that there is a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Based on the Complaint and the evidence put forward, the Panel finds that the Respondent reproduced the exact PHOENIX CONTACT trade mark of the Complainant as part of the disputed domain name in order to specifically target the Complainant and its trade mark and so as to illegitimately suggest an affiliation with the Complainant. Given the past content available under the disputed domain name (including a page falsely suggesting that the Complainant was about to launch a new website or service under the disputed domain name) and the extensive global footprint of the Complainant and its trade marks, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line 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. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 1 In light of the substantive and procedural similarities between the .IR Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has cited the WIPO Overview 3.0, where appropriate.
page 4 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. /Vincent Denoyelle/ Vincent Denoyelle Sole Panelist Date: December 30, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy