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

Hoerbiger Holding AG v. John Jackson

Case No. DCO2017-0015

1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant is Hoerbiger Holding AG of Zug, Switzerland, represented by Arnecke Sibeth, Germany.

1.2 The Respondent is John Jackson of Dickinson, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

2.1 The disputed domain name <hoerbiger.co> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 16, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 17, 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.

3.2 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").

3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 13, 2017.

3.4 The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 21, 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

4.1 The Complainant is active in the field of compression technology, drive technology and hydraulics. The Complainant has traded using the name "Hoerbiger" since 1895 and has subsequently been used by members of the Hoerbiger group of companies and other entities within the Hoerbiger Group.

4.2 The Complainant has registered the trademark HOERBIGER as an international mark under the Madrid system with International Registration No. 740260 in the following classes: 7, 9, 12, 17, 37 and 42. A copy of this registration is exhibited as Annex 3 to the Complaint.

4.3 The trademark HOERBIGER was registered on April 19, 2000 in Switzerland under Registration No. P‑471519. Moreover, the Complainant has registered the mark HOERBIGER in other jurisdictions including Indonesia, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.

4.4 Save as below, the case file does not include much information as to the activities of the Respondent. In the absence of a Response the Panel finds the evidence adduced by the Complainant as true and proceeds to determine this Complaint on the basis of that evidence.

4.5 The disputed domain name was registered on November 7, 2016, and does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant claims that it was registered for a fraudulent email scheme.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <hoerbiger.co> is identical with the Complainant's trademark HOERBIGER in which it has rights.

5.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, there is no evidence that the Respondent conducts any business under the name Hoerbiger.

5.3 The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

6.1 The Panel finds, based upon the evidence set out above, that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the mark HOERBIGER. Save for the country code Top-Level Domain ".co", the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark HOERBIGER under which the Complainant conducts its business activities.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

6.2 The Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any right or legitimate interest in the use of the disputed domain name <hoerbiger.co>. There is no evidence that the Respondent conducts any business under the mark HOERBIGER and does not have any trademark registered for the term "Hoerbiger".

6.3 Taking into account that there is no evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the Complainants submission and finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

6.4 The evidence of bad faith adduced by the Complainant is that the disputed domain name <hoerbiger.co> was registered with the Registrar on November 7, 2016. Soon afterwards the Respondent sent an email under the disputed domain name to the Kuwait office of the Complainant Group pretending to be an employee of Hoerbiger UK Limited (part of the Hoerbiger Group) and attempting to obtain travel agency details from the Kuwait office. This was on the express pretext that the travel agency normally used by Hoerbiger UK Limited was under maintenance and the employee in question needed details to make travel arrangements with the travel agency of the Complainant's Kuwait office. An email chain evidencing this is exhibited as Annex 4 to the Complaint. At the time an employee of the Complainant commented that "someone may be spoofing the number".

6.5 The Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark and trading name HOERBIGER in order to conduct potentially fraudulent business. This is the obvious conclusion to be inferred from the email trail exhibited by the Complainant.

6.6 There is no evidence to the contrary adduced by the Respondent and in those circumstances the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

7. Decision

7.1 For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(1) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <hoerbiger.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: July 5, 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/