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

Partners Group Holding AG and Partners Group AG v. Domain Admin, China Capital Investment Limited

Case No. D2016-2501

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Partners Group Holding AG and Partners Group AG, both of Baar-Zug, Switzerland, represented by Nieder Kraft & Frey, Switzerland.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, China Capital Investment Limited of Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <partnersgroupp.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2016. On December 12, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s contact details. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 21, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 23, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 12, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 13, 2017.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on January 17, 2017. 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 Complainants are associated corporations registered in Switzerland and will hereinafter be referred to as “the Complainant.”

The Complainant is a private equity investment manager. It is the owner of registered trademarks comprising or including the term PARTNERS GROUP in numerous territories. These registrations include:

- United States trademark number 3434901 for the word mark PARTNERS GROUP, registered on May 27, 2008 for asset management and related services in Class 36;

- International trademark number 1036818 for a device and word mark including PARTNERS GROUP PASSION FOR PRIVATE MARKETS, registered on March 31, 2010 in Classes 35 and 36 and designating a total of 42 territories worldwide.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 27, 2015.

The Complainant has submitted evidence that on November 23, 2016 the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.partnersgroupp.com” which appeared to offer links to various financial management providers and services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it has traded under the name and mark PARTNERS GROUP since 1996. It relies on its registered trademarks referred to above and on its website at “www.partnersgroup.com”, from which it states it has offered its services since that date. The Complainant submits that it is internationally known with 20 offices around the world and that it is among the most highly ranked private equity managers.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant points to its trademarks comprising or including the term PARTNERS GROUP and submits that the disputed domain name is identical to those trademarks but for the addition of the letter “p”, which represents an obvious attempt at “typosquatting”.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent any rights to use its mark PARTNERS GROUP and that the Respondent has not been commonly known by that name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor that it has made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has no meaning other than to refer to the Complainant and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name merely to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill by diverting Internet users to the Respondent’s website.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name itself comprises a bad faith registration as it represents a common misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to profit from the Complainant’s goodwill by misdirecting Internet users to its website, where it offers links to companies active in the same fields as the Complainant and offering financial services competitive with those of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent derives “pay-per-click” revenues from the relevant links and is therefore capitalizing upon the Complainant’s goodwill.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark PARTNERS GROUP and that it has traded prominently under that mark since 1996. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <partnersgroupp.com> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark PARTNERS GROUP but for an obvious typographical error, and that it is therefore identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions referred to above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this administrative proceeding and has not provided any explanation for the registration or use of the disputed domain name, whether in accordance with any of the criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Furthermore, the Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Respondent has not contradicted, that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of misleading Internet users into visiting the Respondent’s website where it offers links to services competitive with those of the Complainant. The Panel finds that such Internet users are likely to visit the Respondent’s website in the mistaken belief that it is owned, operated or authorized by the Complainant and that such misleading use does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Having no other evidence of any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent’s part, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain name comprises nothing other than an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark PARTNERS GROUP and amounts to an impersonation of the Complainant. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be inherently misleading and is unable to conceive of any legitimate purpose to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name. Furthermore, in the light of the Complainant’s uncontradicted evidence of the misleading use to which the disputed domain name has been put, the Panel infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark PARTNERS GROUP and with the intention of misrepresenting a legitimate connection with that trademark to Internet users. The Panel finds further that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel concludes in the circumstances that the disputed domain name has been registered 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 disputed domain name <partnersgroupp.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2017

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/