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

Sener, Ingeniería y Sistemas, S.A. v. Gjorgji, Gjorgji

Case No. DME2018-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sener, Ingeniería y Sistemas, S.A. of Getxo, Spain, represented by Clarke, Modet y Cía., S.L., Spain.

The Respondent is Gjorgji, Gjorgji of Palm Harbor, Florida, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <sener.me> (the "Domain Name"), is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 22, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 23, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 27, 2018.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2018. 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 Spanish company founded in 1956 and engaged in major projects around the world in the fields of engineering and construction, and energy and the environment.

The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations around the world including by way of example European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 000448209 SENER (word) registered on September 28, 1998 (application filed on March 3, 1997) for a variety of goods and services in classes 12, 37 and 42.

The Complainant is the owner of several domain names featuring the "Sener" name, including <sener.es>, which it uses for certain of its staff email addresses. It is also the proprietor of the ".sener" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") identifier.

The Domain Name was registered on October 23, 2017 and does not resolve to an active website.

On a date prior to registration of the Domain Name the Complainant entered into an agreement with a company in Oman for the supply of valves. In the course of the performance of that agreement, on October 23, 2017 (the date of registration of the Domain Name) the Complainant, responding to what it thought was a message from the valve supplier, duly transmitted the contract sum to what it thought was the valve supplier's bank account. On October 24, 2017 the valve supplier received what it thought was confirmation from the Complainant that the money had been transferred. It subsequently transpired that the valve supplier did not receive the money. The 'confirmation' had come from an email address utilizing the Domain Name. On investigation it became clear that both parties' email addresses in the correspondence in question had been closely replicated, the email address of the Complainant appearing as "[redacted]@sener.me" instead of "[redacted]@sener.es".

On January 10, 2018 the Complainant's representative sent a letter to the Respondent seeking inter alia transfer of the Domain Name and repayment of the money. The Respondent did not reply.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SENER trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the 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

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights: and

(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.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's SENER trade mark followed by the ".me" country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") identifier. It being permissible for the Panel to ignore the ccTLD identifier for this assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's SENER registered trade mark.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests and D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

These two elements of the Policy can sensibly be taken as one. The Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which he used it, namely to deceive. The nature of the fraud is set out in section 4 above and involved the creation of email addresses confusingly similar to those of the contracting parties. He registered the Domain Name on October 23, 2017. Both contracting parties were deceived and suffered financial loss as a result. On no basis could the Respondent be said to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Plainly he registered the Domain Name in bad faith and used it in bad faith.

The Panel makes the above findings on the evidence filed by the Complainant, which supports the Complainant's contentions. The Respondent has not seen fit to respond to those contentions.

The Panel finds 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, <sener.me>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: April 18, 2018

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/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/