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

GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. J. D.

Case No. D2014-0357

1. The Parties

The Complainant is GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft of Dusseldorf, Germany, represented by Schneiders & Behrendt, Germany.

The Respondent is J. D. [this being the initials of the entity named as registrant of the disputed domain name] of Bellevue, Washington, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <gea-intl.com> is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2014. On March 10, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 2014, the Registrar 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 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 17, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 6, 2014. An email communication was received from the Respondent by the Center on March 21, 2014. On March 24, 2014, the Center responded to the Respondent’s email by attaching the Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding email, and informing the Respondent that the due date for a response was April 6, 2014. No formal response was received by the Center.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 2014. 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 worldwide operating corporation and one of the largest suppliers of technology to the food processing industry and a wide range of other processing industries. In 2013 the Complainant generated consolidated revenues in excess of EUR 4.3 billion and employed about 18,000 people worldwide.

The Complainant started using the company name “GEA” as an acronym for Gesellschaft fur Entstaubungsanlagen” in the 1930s, and has developed into an international corporation under the company name “GEA”. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for and incorporating the acronym GEA, dating from at least as early as 1932 in Germany, 1963 in the United States of America, and 1984 in Australia.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2014. Screenshots provided by the Complainant show that the disputed domain name resolved to the Complainant’s website at “www.gea-heatexchangers.com” on March 6, 2014, and to the Complainant’s main website at “www.gea.com” on March 7, 2014. Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GEA registered trademarks and to its company name “GEA” because it fully and identically incorporates the GEA mark of the Complainant. The addition of the element “intl” is not sufficient to avoid confusion, particularly as “gea” is the dominant part of the disputed domain name. The suffix “intl” is merely descriptive and is the non-distinctive abbreviation for “international”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) it has no name rights with respect to a personal or company name or trademark; (ii) the Complainant has been using its company name “GEA” and its GEA trademarks for decades worldwide and owns by far the older rights as the disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2014; (iii) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to two of the Complainant’s websites, which is not a legitimate interest; and (iv) there is no business relationship whatsoever between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Complainant is the proprietor of prior rights regarding the term “gea”, which was identically incorporated into the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name solely to disrupt the business of the Complainant as the Respondent used an email address, […]@gea-intl.com, for sending bogus purchase orders and invitations for quotation to several suppliers of the Complainant in the United States of America; (iii) two bogus purchase orders were sent in the name of “GEA Heat Exchangers, Inc.” which is a subsidiary of the Complainant, at a time when the disputed domain name was forwarded to the website of GEA Heat Exchangers, Inc., in order to give the impression that the bogus email address was an email address of an employee of the Complainant; and (iv) as the delivery addresses provided in the bogus purchase orders do not belong to the Complainant, suppliers delivering products to those addresses would not have received payment from the Complainant and would therefore have suffered financial damage, and the Complainant’s reputation would have suffered substantial damage.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a formal response. On March 21, 2014, the Center received an email from a person with the same name as the Respondent stating that: (i) the person thinks the letter from the Center has been sent to the wrong person; (ii) that the email address […]@yahoo.com (one of the email addresses to which the Complaint was sent) is not an email address of the person; and (iii) that the person does not know how to respond to the Center’s letter.

6. Procedural Issue: the name of the Respondent

A person with the same name as the Respondent responded to the Center acknowledging receipt of the Complaint but asserting that he/she was not connected with the disputed domain name. The Panel has not reached, and does not need to reach, a conclusion on whether that particular person is connected with the disputed domain name. As is discussed below, some person, who has registered the disputed domain name using the name of the Respondent, is in control of the disputed domain name and has used it in a manner that entitles the Complainant to a remedy under the Policy. Nevertheless, in case identifying the name of the registrant of the disputed domain name would unfairly prejudice any person having the same name, the Panel has decided to use the initials of the registrant as the name of the Respondent to the Complaint.

7. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark GEA, with the addition of the descriptive text “intl” (being an abbreviation for “international”). The dominant element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark GEA. The Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive abbreviation does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. This is especially so given that the Complainant is a large international company. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark 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 GEA trademark. The Respondent has provided no evidence establishing that it has trademark or other rights to the string “gea”, which is the dominant and distinctive component of the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used as a URL to resolve to two of the Complainant’s websites, and as an email address used to place bogus purchase orders, unbeknown to the Complainant. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 many decades after the Complainant first registered its GEA trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the extent of use of its GEA trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant’s GEA trademark, and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business by using it as an email address to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

8. 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 <gea-intl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2014

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/