WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Norgren GmbH v. Ore Net Marketing

Case No. DCO2015-0003

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Norgren GmbH of Alpen, Germany, represented by The Ollila Law Group, LLC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Ore Net Marketing of Portland, Oregon, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <herion.co> 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 January 12, 2015. On January 13, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2015, 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 January 20, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 9, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 10, 2015.

The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2015. 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 corporation which since 1938 has marketed under the name Herion a variety of goods and services in particular equipment for a wide range of valves, pump switching-gear, thermostats, transformers, measuring devices and similar types of machinery.

The Complainant has numerous trademark registrations for the mark HERION in more than 50 countries. Its first trademark, in the United States of America (where the Respondents resides), was registered in 1976. The Complainant’s business using the mark is worldwide.

The Respondent’s website accessed by the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website where viewers are presented with sponsored links which include those of the Complainant’s competitors.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s many registered trademarks for the word HERION.

The Complainant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave him none.

None of the situations in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent who did not invoke any of them.

The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent has purposefully created the likelihood of confusion for Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. He is using the Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet users thereto for commercial gain.

His activities disrupt and diminish the Complainant’s business. Potential customers are likely to be misled and diverted to the Complainant’s website which has links to the Respondent’s competitors.

The Respondent must have known of the fame of the Complainant’s mark which has no dictionary meaning. The Complainant’s mark has been registered in the United States since 1976.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:

(i) The 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 domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.

Therefore paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no right or interest such as would allow him to reflect the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent, if he had filed a Response, could have invoked Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy which sets out three situations – any one of which could have provided a defense under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. He has not done so.

The Respondent has been given no right or license by the Complainant to reflect the trademark in the disputed domain name. None of the situations contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent.

Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

This is a text book example of cybersquatting. The Respondent has registered as a domain name the exact wording of a trademark registered in some 50 countries under which specialized merchandise is marketed worldwide.

The mark HERION must be well-known to users of the kind of specialized products which the Complainant sells on a global basis. The blatant attempt of the Respondent on the website to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s mark is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. The likelihood of confusion to the Internet user and of disruption of the Complainant’s business by this website is obvious.

It is not hard to infer that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its marks when he registered the disputed domain name. The mark is not a dictionary word and would be known to those whose business involves the use of the Complainant’s numerous specialized products.

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

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 <herion.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: March 3, 2015