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

Siemens AG v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Christina Duncan, GIS

Case No. DCO2020-0007

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Siemens AG, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke, Germany.

The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Christina Duncan, GIS, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <siemensenergy.co> (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 January 29, 2020. On January 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 3, 2020, 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 February 5, 2020 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 February 6, 2020.

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 February 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2020.1 The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2020.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 2020. 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 one of the world’s largest electrical engineering and electronics companies. The Complainant operates in some 190 countries. Founded more than 150 years ago, the Complainant is active in many areas, such as energy, automation and control, power, transportation, information, financial services and communications.

The Complainant owns registrations for the trademark SIEMENS around the world, such as International registration no. 637074, registered on March 31, 1995, covering more than 60 countries.

According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on December 1, 2016 and updated on December 1, 2018. It expires on November 30, 2020.

At the time of the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the trademark SIEMENS, and argues that the trademark is famous by virtue of long and extensive use. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name contains the trademark SIEMENS followed by the descriptive term “energy”, referring to the energy business that the Complainant operates in. The addition of the descriptive term does not avoid confusion.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not and has never been one of the Complainant’s representatives, employees or one of its licensees or otherwise authorized to use the trademark. The Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks, which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. The Domain Name resolves to a holding page with the information “Website Coming Soon”. This is not bona fide use.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant’s earlier rights in the trademark SIEMENS. The Respondent intends to use the strong reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in order to confuse the public and to cause damage to the Complainant in disrupting its business. The passive holding of Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith, cf. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Moreover, it not possible to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the Domain Name that would not involve 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 established rights in the trademark SIEMENS. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the descriptive term “energy”. The addition does not avoid confusion. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.co”.

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

There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name redirects to a holding page. This does not qualify as bona fide use under the Policy.

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

Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Without any plausible explanation as to why the Respondent registered the Domain Name, The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s intention is and has been to confuse the public and/or to cause damage to the Complainant in disrupting its business. The passive holding of Domain Name does not change this finding, cf., WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.3. The lack of response to the Complaint further points to bad faith.

The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 <siemensenergy.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 27, 2020

1 Initially, the Written Notice was inadvertently not sent to the postal address indicated by the Registrar to the Respondent. Hence, the Center sent the Written Notice to said address, and allowed the Respondent additional time to respond.

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/