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 eMadrid Reference 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


SEW-Eurodrive GmbH & Co. KG v. Morteza Naeini

Case No. D2021-0972

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SEW-Eurodrive GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by PETILLION, Belgium.

The Respondent is Morteza Naeini, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sewiran.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 March 31, 2021. On March 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 31, 2021, 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 April 8, 2021 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 April 10, 2021.

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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2021.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 2021. 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 company doing business worldwide, providing drive technology and drive based automation goods and services. The Complainant owns a number of registrations for marks comprised of or containing the word SEW and SEW-EURODRIVE, including European Union Trade Mark 003454873 for SEW, registered on May 2, 2005.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website available in Persian and in English, which appears to offer for sale the Complainant’s products in Iran. The website mentions the Complainant’s SEW and SEW-EURODRIVE trademarks and logo on every page, and contains pictures of the Complainant’s products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

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

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

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

The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner of the registered mark SEW as noted above.

The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See, Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505. In this case, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark SEW in its entirety. The addition of the Top-Level Domain “.com” and the country name “iran” to the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has successfully established a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name to set up a website to purportedly sell goods and services that could be mistaken for those offered by the Complainant is not a bona fide or noncommercial offering of services. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Volvo India India, Volvo India, WIPO Case No. D2019-2170. The Complainant never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the SEW mark within the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent does not disclose its lack of relationship with the Complainant and appears to offer goods in competition with those of the Complainant on the website resolving from the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not provide a response in this action, and nothing in the record serves to rebut the prima facie showing that the Complainant has made. The Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complaint succeeds under the third element as well. This case illustrates the example of evidence of bad faith set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely, using a recognized mark to “attempt[ ] to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Given that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to falsely appear associated with the Complainant and seek to sell the Complainant’s products, as well as products of the Complainant’s competitors, there is no question of its knowledge of the Complainant, its products, and its trademarks. From that knowledge and those efforts, targeting the value of those marks in bad faith may be readily inferred. See, Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Munawar Ali and Perfect Privacy, LLC / Mohammad Ali Bhutto, WIPO Case No. D2019-0227; Iveco S.p.A. v. Cong ty TNHH san xuat va TM Khang Thinh, NA, WIPO Case No. D2015-2249. Accordingly, the panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent.

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 <sewiran.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: May 24, 2021