Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105233

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.

The Complainant is Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG., a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks within Siemens Group.

The Complainant’s trademarks date back at least 1986, see for example:

- Trademark: SIEMENS (word mark);

International trademark number 504324 registered on 7 April 1986.

- Trademark: SIEMENS (combined mark);

International trademark number 637074 registered on 31 March 1995.

- Trademark: SIEMENS (combined mark);

EU trademark number 004240263 registered on 28 March 2006.

The 106 disputed domain names are as follows:

The Complainant is Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG., a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks within Siemens Group.

Siemens is a technology group founded more than 175 years ago that is active in 190 countries, focusing on the areas of automation and digitalization in the process and manufacturing industries, intelligent infrastructure for buildings and distributed energy systems, smart mobility solutions for rail transport, and medical technology and digital healthcare services.

Siemens comprises Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens AG), a stock corporation under the Federal laws of Germany, as the parent company, and its subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2024, Siemens had around 327,000 employees on a continuing and discontinued basis.

In 2024, Siemens Group revenue was €75.9 billion, and its net income was €9.0 billion (https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/strong-fourth-quarter-completes-successful-fiscal-2024).

COMPLAINANT:

A. PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The Complainant requests consolidation of all of the disputed domain names into this single case. The Complainant asserts that all of the disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert.

Past UDRP decisions have held that multiple domain names may be consolidated into a single case where they are all subject to common control and, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, where consolidation would be procedurally efficient, fair, and equitable to all parties.

The Complaint identifies a number of common factors:

1. All disputed domain names incorporate the “SIEMENS” Trademark;

2. All disputed domain names use the same naming pattern, namely the entirety of Complainant’s trademark accompanied by a number;

3. 95% of the disputed domains are using the privacy services of Global Domain Group Privacy Service;

4. 95% of the domains are registered at Global Domain Group LLC.

5. All the disputed domains names were registered within a period of 6 months. 96% of them were registered within a period of 2 months, between the 8th of March 2025 and the 14th of April 2025, 2 of the domains were registered in January 2025 and the 2 remaining domains were registered within a period of 1 month, between the 22nd of October 2024 and the 10th of November 2024;

Considering all of the above, on balance of the probabilities - the accepted standard of proof in UDRP cases - it is more likely than not that all of the disputed domain names are under common ownership or control;

Finally, none of the common factors identified in the Complaint nor the inference that the disputed domain names are under common control have been disputed.

The Complainant notes that the Panel is given discretion under Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, therefore the Complainant also requests that the language of this administrative proceeding to be English for the following reasons:

Most of the disputed domain names (95%) are registered at Dynadot Inc / Global Domain Group LLC which uses an English language domain name registration agreement (https://www.globaldomaingroup.com/terms-of-service#part-i).

One of the disputed domain names is registered at Dominet (HK) Limited, which uses an English language domain registration agreement: https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/legal/latest/alibaba-cloud-international-website-domain-name-service-agreement-new

Two of the disputed domain names are registered at Gname 077 Inc./ Gname.com Pte. Ltd, which uses an English language domain name registration agreement https://www.gname.com/help/47.html.

One of the disputed domain names is registered at Key-Systems GmbH. The registration agreement (clause 6) states that “Both, the English and German versions of this agreement are valid and binding” (see https://www.key-systems.net/en/legal/registration-agreement/).

The registrar Xiamen Nawang Technology Co., Ltd has indicated that the registration agreement for the disputed domain name <siemens360.com> is in English.

The Complainant notes that the registrar has indicated that the registration agreement is in Chinese for the disputed domain name <siemens001.com>.

The Complainant requests the language of this administrative proceeding to be English for the following reasons:

• The disputed domain names are all formed by words in the Latin script and not in Chinese characters;

• All of the disputed domain names include the English-language trademark(s);

• 105 out of 106 disputed domain names are registered with registrars using a registration agreement in English;

• All of the disputed domain names are in the international .com zone;

• Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into another language would create an undue burden and delay.

B. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The Complainant is the owner of various word- and figurative “SIEMENS” Trademarks. The Complainant has been the exclusive rights owner of these Trademarks since at least 1986. The Trademark “SIEMENS” has been recognized as a well-known trademark in several UDRP decisions.

In the present case, all of the disputed domain names incorporate the “SIEMENS” trademarks in its entirety followed by a number, ranging from 001 to 360.

The Complainant notes that panels have held domain names to be confusingly similar if the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name.

The Respondent has added one number after the “SIEMENS” well-known trademark to each of the disputed domain names.

The addition of a number cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, as the relevant well-known “SIEMENS” Trademark is fully recognizable within the disputed domain names.

Based on the foregoing, the disputed domain names must be considered confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The Respondent has not acquired any prior trademark or service mark rights, and the Respondent’s use and registration of the 106 disputed domain names were not in any way authorized by the Complainant.

The earliest registration date for any of the disputed domains is 22 October 2024 <siemens360.com>. The disputed domain names were registered long after the Complainant registered and commenced its use of its Trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s Trademarks in a confusingly similar manner within the disputed domain names. The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with Respondent and has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the “SIEMENS” trademark in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has exclusive trademark rights which predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate offering of goods or services under the “SIEMENS” mark. In the absence of a license or permission from the Complainant concerning the use of its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names can reasonably be claimed.

At the time of drafting the complaint, the majority of the disputed domain names resolved to inactive websites, except for <siemens001.com> which resolved to a website dedicated to gambling and <siemens88.com>, which resolved to a website inviting the user to log in or create an account. A reverse image search of the picture displayed on the website associated with the disputed domain <siemens88.com>, shows that the photo originated from Siemens Energy, a subsidiary of Siemens AG (parent company of the Complainant).

Per paragraph 2.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, the Respondent must be “commonly known” by the relevant moniker apart from the domain name. As such, the Respondents are required to produce concrete credible evidence that they are commonly known by the domain name.

No such credible evidence is shown anywhere on the disputed domain names by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent does not hold any genuine trademark or service mark right.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names prior to the registration of the disputed domain names.

As previously mentioned, all the disputed domain names except two, resolve to inactive websites.

The disputed domain names which are ‘passively held’ would not generate rights or legitimate interest.

Moreover, the Complainant emphasizes that a finding of bad faith (as set out below) also means that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names cannot be regarded as “fair”, or “legitimate”, nor as a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i).

Now that the Complainant has asserted that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion. Per paragraph 2.2 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 claimed examples of use (or demonstrable preparations to use) the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be merely self-serving but should be inherently credible and supported by relevant pre-complaint evidence.

D. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH

Starting from the 22 of October 2024, the Respondent has registered 106 (known at the moment of drafting this Complaint)  disputed domain names with the aim to prevent the legitimate trademark owner from reflecting their mark in the disputed domain names.

The Respondent is trying to “corner the market” in disputed domain names that reflect the Complainant’s trademarks, registering many variations containing its trademarks in combination with numbers.

This amounts to a ‘pattern of conduct’, supporting a finding of abusive registration.

The Complainant has been the rights owner of the well-known “SIEMENS” trademark since at least 1986. The disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant's mark when registering the domains, and targeting its trademarks.

The Complainant refers to paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.

In addition, the Respondent is using privacy services to hide its identity.

According to the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, paragraph 3.3, passive holding can support a finding a bad faith and the following circumstances can be taken into account.

The Complainant further alleges that the following ‘additional bad faith consideration factors’ as mentioned in paragraph 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 apply to the facts of this case:

(i) the nature of the domain name: in this case, respondent registered a large number of domain names incorporating the complainant’s mark plus a generic term (a number) – as such there is no doubt that Respondent is a ‘cybersquatter’;

(ii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain names.

Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

RESPONDENT

No administratively compliant Response was filed.

To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that some of the disputed domain names, as described below, are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of some of the disputed domain names, as described below (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that some of the disputed domain names, as described below, have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Before proceeding to the dispute's substance, the Panel must address a couple of procedural matters. The first one relates to the language of proceedings.

Based on the information provided by the Registrars through the verification, the language of the Registration Agreements in practically all of the disputed domain names is English. The only exception to this is the disputed domain name <siemens001.com>, for which the language of the registration agreement is Chinese.

As per WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 4.5, which is persuasive in this case, and noting that the aim of conducting the proceedings with due expedition, paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

As discussed below, the Complainant presents a strong case that the disputed domain names are subject to common control. However, this is not the case for <siemens001.com>, which, although it follows a similar naming pattern and was registered around the same time, is registered through a different Registrar and has Chinese as the language of the Registration Agreement. In addition, although almost all disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites, <siemens001.com> resolves to a gambling website. These differences suggest that this disputed domain name does not necessarily follow the same fate as all the others.

Based on the evidence on record and on the balance of probability in conjunction, the Panel is left to conclude that most of the disputed domain names are indeed subject to common control, except for <siemens001.com>, since there are apparent differences that indicate it may not fall under the common control of the Respondent(s) under this matter. For this, English is the language of proceedings. Further analysis of this is provided below.

The second procedural factor relates to a request for the consolidation of multiple Respondents.

For this, the Panel finds guidance under paragraph 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, namely, "Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties."

In this matter, the Complainant presented various arguments in support of the request, which are outlined above.

Based on this, the Panel notes that indeed, all the disputed domain names incorporate the "SIEMENS" Trademark in a similar pattern, namely the entirety of Complainant's trademark accompanied by a number.

Additionally, the bulk of the disputed domain names, namely 101 of these, utilize the privacy services of Global Domain Group Privacy Service and are registered with the same Registrar, Global Domain Group LLC.

The Panel also notes that all the disputed domain names were registered within six months, with the bulk of them registered within two months.

The Panel also notes that all of the disputed domain names resolve to an inactive website, except two, namely <siemens001.com> which resolves to a website dedicated to gambling, and for which the Panel, based on the above discussion, now determines, based on the differences and without any further explanation, that this would not fall under consolidation for this this matter.

The other disputed domain name that redirects to a website where the Internet user can seemingly create an account and displays some images apparently used by the Complainant is <siemens88.com>. This disputed domain name is also associated with a Registrant, which, unlike all the other disputed domain names, includes an Organization. Although there are some similarities in terms of naming patterns and registration dates, these differences, without further explanation, could likely indicate that this disputed domain name does not fall under the common control of the Respondent.

Based on the above, the Panel determines that the matter can proceed under consolidation for all disputed domain names, except for the following two disputed domain names: <siemens001.com> and <siemens88.com>. Accordingly, the Panel considers that the consolidation of Respondents would be fair and equitable to all parties for all the other disputed domain names. Hence, from this point on, the term Respondent shall be understood to refer to all the Respondents in this matter.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Regarding the first step under this element, and as per evidence on record, the Complainant has owned several trademarks containing the term "SIEMENS" since at least 1986. Therefore, based on this, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown its trademark rights in "SIEMENS".

Turning now to the second step under this element, namely, assessing the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademarks, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names reproduce the trademark "SIEMENS" in its entirety, with the addition of a string of numbers succeeding the trademark for each disputed domain name. All of the disputed domain names follow a similar identifiable pattern. Having mentioned these across-the-board similarities, the Panel would classify these under slight changes, which are not substantial enough to dispel a finding of confusing similarity.

Based on this, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the Policy's first element set under paragraph 4(a)(I).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the evidence on record and acknowledging that the Respondent failed to produce any allegations or evidence necessary, the Panel must turn to the uncontested facts.

The uncontested facts indicate that: 1) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; 2) the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant; 3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; 4) the Respondent has not provided evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute; and 5) the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites.

In the Panel's view, these assertions and the evidence attached are enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (see 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).

These facts lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Consequently, the Panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Subsequently, the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, as per the evidence on record, the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant's trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain names. According to the record, this is evidenced by the reproduction of the trademark in its entirety and the pattern of strings of numbers used for each of the disputed domain names. In addition, a simple search for the term "SIEMENS" would have revealed the Complainant, which has a significant online and offline presence, coupled with what appears to be no credible explanation for the Respondent's choice of disputed domain names, other than an intention to target the Complainant.

Additionally, as per the evidence on record and balance of probability, the Panel is left with no other option than to conclude that the most likely intention of the Respondent was to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or disputed domain name, as per illustrated under paragraph 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the final element required under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

In light of the case's circumstances, based on the available records, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

D. Decision

For the preceding reasons and in concurrence with the provisions specified under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of some of the disputed domain names, as per below, to the Complainant.