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

Robert Bosch GmbH v. Vietnam Kitchen Luxury Equipment Import Company Limited, Ms. Vu Thi Bich Van / NGUYEN THI TRIEU

Case No. D2021-2464

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Robert Bosch GmbH, Germany, represented by BMVN International LLC, Viet Nam.

The Respondent is Vietnam Kitchen Luxury Equipment Import Company Limited, Ms. Vu Thi Bich Van, Viet Nam / NGUYEN THI TRIEU, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <boschnhapkhau.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 29, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 2, 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 August 5, 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 August 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 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 part of a German global supplier of technology and services founded in 1886. Its operations are divided into four business sectors: Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology, Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology. The Consumer Goods business sector includes a subsidiary that offers a broad range of household appliances such as washing machines, refrigerators, freezers, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, coffee makers, etc.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations globally for marks that incorporate the word “BOSCH”, including in different jurisdictions, including in Viet Nam where the Respondent is located, such as Vietnamese Trademark registration No. 173621, registered October 13, 2011, and registration No. 251590, registered January 19, 1962. The Complainants uses the domain name <bosch.com> for its online presence.

The Domain Name was registered on January 22, 2014. At the time of the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a website from which the Respondent claimed to be selling the Complainant’s goods in Viet Nam. The said website displays product images that are copyrighted by the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the BOSCH trademark in its entirety, which creates confusion with its well-known trademark. The mere addition of the word element “nhapkhau” is not sufficient to make the Domain Name distinguishable from the Complainant’s trademark. “nhapkhau” is a Vietnamese word that means “import” in English.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as the Respondent does not own and cannot lawfully obtain any trademark or intellectual property rights in the BOSCH Trademark. The Respondent has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s use is rather evidence of bad faith. The Respondent does not use its website to sell only the trademarked goods or services, nor does it accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the trademark holder.

The Complainant believes the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s well-known trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. This is evident from the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to lure consumers to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The registration and the use of the Domain Name have been made in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has documented rights in the trademark BOSCH. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of “nhapkhau”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith, see below. The Respondent is not a reseller with legitimate interests in the Domain Name; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is undebatable from the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. The website at the Domain Name displays the Complainant’s BOSCH trademark (with logo) along with the Vietnamese phrase that reads “Showroom Bosch chính hãng Hà Nội”, which seems to be translated into English as “Authentic Bosch Showroom Hanoi”. In addition, the website is being used to offer for sale sinks and faucets from other brands unrelated the Complainant. The Panel finds it is likely that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <boschnhapkhau.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2021

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/