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

Grundfos Holding A/S v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2017-0925

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Grundfos Holding A/S of Bjerringbro, Denmark, represented by Kromann Reumert, Denmark.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America ("United States").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <grundfos.vip> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 8, 2017. On May 8, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 8, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 30, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 31, 2017.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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 Complainant, a leading manufacturer of pumps, is the owner of the registered trade mark GRUNDFOS registered, inter alia, in the United States (where the Respondent privacy service is based) in relation to pumps and related goods and services since 1964. The Complainant operates a web site at "www.grundfos.com".

The Domain Name, registered in 2017, has been pointed to pay-per-click ("PPC") commercial links not associated with the Complainant, including competing pumps.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant is part of the Grundfos Group established in 1945 and is one of the leading manufacturers of pumps in the world. The GRUNDFOS trade mark is well known and has been used since 1964 (previous registrations for the differently spelled GRUNDFOSS mark dating back to 1946). The GRUNDFOS mark is registered globally including in the United States where the Respondent is based. It operates a web site at "www.grundfos.com".

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GRUNDFOS trade mark as it is integrates this mark merely combining it with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".vip". This is identical to the Complainant's trade mark for the purposes of the Policy.

The Respondent is an American resident with a web site that contains hyperlinks to other sites. The Complainant has not given consent for this use. The Respondent is not an authorized dealer, reseller or repairer and the Parties are not cooperating in any way. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name.

The Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant registered its trade mark a long time before the Domain Name was registered. The use in relation to hyperlinks is misleading as it is not clear the site attached to the Domain Name is not connected with the Complainant, but it shows the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the Domain Name.

The Respondent did not reply to a cease-and-desist letter from the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's GRUNDFOS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the United States since 1964 for pumps) and the gTLD ".vip". ".vip" is a new gTLD which does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the GRUNDFOS mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. As the gTLD ".vip" does not form part of the alleged use of the Complainant's mark and is a necessary component of a Domain Name it is well established by decisions under the Policy that it would not be appropriate to consider such gTLD as part of the comparison for the purposes of confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact commonly known by the Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the site is set up for commercial benefit to compete with the Complainant using the latter's intellectual property rights. The Respondent is using the site attached to the Domain Name for links offering products in competition with those of the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent's use of the Domain Name is commercial and it is being used to make profit by competing with the Complainant in a confusing and disruptive manner. In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers links to competing goods without any explanation. The use by way of links on the Respondent's web site relating to competing pumps suggests that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is also likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(iv).

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 <grundfos.vip> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 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/