Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108487

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for PENTAIR in various jurisdictions around the world, including, but not limited to:

United States Trademark No. 2,573,714 – PENTAIR (registered May 28, 2002);

United States Trademark No. 5,000,358 – PENTAIR (logo) (registered July 1, 2012);

China Trademark No. 11517821 – PENTAIR (logo) (registered August 21, 2014);

China Trademark No. 3504734 – PENTAIR (logo) (registered April 28, 2006);

EU Trademark No. 011008414 – PENTAIR (logo) (registered January 23, 2013);

Switzerland Trademark No. 675144 – PENTAIR (logo) (registered July 2, 2015).

The Complainant’s affiliated entities also own and operate domain names incorporating the PENTAIR trademark, including:

<pentair.com> (registered October 17, 1996);

<pentair.net> (registered December 25, 2003);

<pentair.org> (registered November 3, 2010).

The Complainant, Pentair Flow Services AG, is part of the Pentair Group, a global provider of water treatment and sustainable water solutions. Founded in 1966, the Pentair Group has developed into an internationally recognized enterprise with operations in more than 150 countries, approximately 9,000 employees, and annual revenues of approximately USD 4.2 billion (2025).

The Complainant and its affiliated companies have used the PENTAIR trademark continuously for several decades in connection with a wide range of water-related products and services. The Complainant states that through longstanding use, extensive commercial activity, and global marketing efforts, the PENTAIR mark has become a distinctive identifier of the Complainant and its business.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for PENTAIR in jurisdictions worldwide, including in China, where the Respondent is located. These trademark rights significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

In addition to its trademark portfolio, the Complainant maintains an online presence through domain names incorporating the PENTAIR mark, including <pentair.com>, <pentair.net>, and <pentair.org>, which are used to provide information about the Complainant’s products, services, and business activities.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent at a date long after the Complainant had established its trademark rights in PENTAIR.

When the website of the disputed domain name is accessed via a mobile browser, the domain name resolves to an active website in the Japanese language offering electric power equipment, which appears in the view of Complainant to be within or adjacent to the Complainant’s sector.

The Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the PENTAIR trademark, nor is there any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark PENTAIR.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s PENTAIR mark in its entirety. The addition of the geographic term “USA” and a hyphen do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. On the contrary, the inclusion of “USA” may reinforce the impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant’s operations in the United States.

It is well established that where a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark, this is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is disregarded in this assessment.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

2. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its PENTAIR trademark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The evidence shows that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with:

pay-per-click links redirecting to third-party gambling websites; and

a website offering electric power equipment, presented in a manner that appears to target the Complainant’s sector and branding.

Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it indicates an attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.

There is also no evidence of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

In the absence of any Response, the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant’s trademark PENTAIR is distinctive and has been in use for several decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the nature of the mark and its established presence, the Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration.

The composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the geographic term “USA”, supports a finding that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant.

The use of the disputed domain name further confirms bad faith. The Respondent has used the domain name to:

redirect Internet users to third-party commercial websites, including gambling services; and

host a website offering products in a related field, presented in a manner that may create an impression of association with the Complainant.

Such conduct demonstrates an intention to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Taking all circumstances into account, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.