Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108866

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

The Complaint relies upon and is the registered owner of International trade mark registration No. 637074 for "SIEMENS" in stylised text filed on 31 March 1995 in classes 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42, and which has proceeded to registration in more than 60 countries. 

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Complainant, Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG, is a trade mark holding company, licensing the trade marks at issue within the Siemens Group. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, which is the ultimate parent company of the Siemens Group. The turnover of the Siemens Group in 2024 was 75.9 billion Euro, and the group employs more than 310,000 people worldwide.

The Siemens Group is headquartered in Berlin and Munich. It is one of the world's largest corporations, providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries. Founded more than 175 years ago, the company is active - to name but a few examples - in the fields of Automation and Control, Power, Transportation, Logistics, Information and Communications, Medical Technology etc.

The trademark "SIEMENS" of the Complainant is used globally in relation to technological, industrial and other solutions.

According to the Whois record for the Domain Name, it was registered on April 9, 2025.

The Respondent has been using the Domain Name within email addresses in order to impersonate a supposed Siemens talent acquisition specialist. The Respondent operates by contacting aspiring job applicants in India and making them believe they are being interviewed by the Siemens Group, with the final purpose of extracting payments from them, for the supposed completion of recruitment steps. 

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the 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 Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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.

The Complainant has demonstrated rights in registered trade marks of which the most prominent element is the text "SIEMENS".  The term "sỉemens" in the Domain Name is almost identical to that text.  The sole difference is that the superscript dot of the letter "i" has been replaced by a hook above the diacritic (as found, for instance, in Vietnamese orthography), rendering the letter as "ỉ" (Punycode: xn--semens-wk8b.com).

Accordingly, the Complainant’s trade marks are clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. This is sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy (see sections 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.  

The Panel accepts that the Domain Name has been deliberately registered to falsely impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of fraud.  Not only is the Panel satisified that the letter "i" has been deliberately replaced with the letter "ỉ" in the hope that this would not be noticed by internet users, but the Complainant has provided a copy of emails using an email address that incorporated the Domain Name, which falsely purport to come from an individual within the Complainant group in order in connection with non-existent job offers. 

 There is obviously no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for the purpose of furtherance of a fraud through impersonation (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.1), and the fact that a domain name is or has been used for such a purpose is evidence that no such right or legitimate interest exists.  Further, the registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose involves registration and use in bad faith (see, section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1).   Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a clearer-cut example of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. Such activities also fall within the scope of the example circumstances evidencing bad faith registration set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.