About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Inventio AG v. Nexperian Holding Limited / Zhou Yun

Case No. D2018-0091

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Inventio AG of Hergiswil, Switzerland, internally represented.

The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of Hangzhou Zhejiang, China / Zhou Yun of Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <schindlerahead.net> is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2018. On January 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 18, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 24, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 26, 2018 and requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 31, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 22, 2018.

The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 2018. 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.

In view of the Complainant’s request (noting also the language of the disputed domain name) and the lack of response of the Respondent (such that there will be no prejudice to the Respondent, who could have put forward arguments, and was provided an opportunity to do so even in Chinese), this decision is made in English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schindler Holding AG, which is the parent company of the Schindler group of companies. The Schindler group are suppliers of, principally, elevators, escalators, moving walkways and related equipment. The Schindler group began in Lucerne, Switzerland, in 1874 and today has 60,000 employees in more than 100 countries, including China where the Respondent is located.

The Complainant is the intellectual property company of the Schindler group of companies.

The trademark SCHINDLER has been registered in more than 150 countries, dating from at least as early as 1981 (including Chinese Trademark Registration No.4395402, registered on August 14, 2008). The trademark SCHINDLER AHEAD was applied for as early as April 10, 2017 and registered on September 27, 2017 (Swiss Registration No. 707623).

The disputed domain name <schindlerahead.net> was registered on April 17, 2017 in the name of Nexperian Holding Limited. The disputed domain name currently is not active.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks SCHINDLER and SCHINDLER AHEAD. The trademark SCHINDLER is completely contained in the disputed domain name and SCHINDLER has been registered for a long time and as early as 1981. SCHINDLER AHEAD has a priority claim of April 10 2017. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” can be disregarded when conducting the confusing similarity test for the purposes of comparison.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (i) the disputed domain name has not been used; (ii) the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise consented to the use of the trademark SCHINDLER by the Complainant; (iii) the disputed name was registered four days after the Complainant’s press release concerning the trademark SCHINELER AHEAD; (iv) the Respondent has not replied to any of the Complainant’s approaches and not asserted any rights to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark Schindler is well-known internationally including China where the Respondent is. The Respondent must be aware of the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered four days after the press release concerning the trademark SCHINDLER AHEAD by the Complainant. The Respondent never answered the Complainant’s letters and requests and the disputed domain name is not active.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademarks SCHINDLER and SCHINDLER AHEAD. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its SCHINDLER or SCHINDLER AHEAD trademarks. The Respondent has not provided any evidence or reply or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence of any other reason, rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent on the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is not active so obviously there is not any actual bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate use. Therefore the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered days after the Complainant launched its SCHINDLER AHEAD trademark to the public.

The evidence provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its SCHINDLER and SCHINDLER AHEAD trademarks with the lack of evidence or reply by the Respondent, demonstrates to the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant’s trademarks and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For all these reasons, this Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered 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 disputed domain name <schindlerahead.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: March 15, 2018

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/