Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-109005

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 has demonstrated rights in the E.ON trademark, including, the following European Union trademark registrations:

• EUTM No. 002361558, E.ON, registered on 19 December 2002 in Classes 35, 39 and 40;

• EUTM No. 002362416, e.on, registered on 19 December 2002 in Classes 35, 39 and 40;

• EUTM No. 006296529, e.on, registered on 27 June 2008 in Classes 7, 36, 37 and 40; and

• EUTM No. 00876364, figurative mark e.on, registered on 9 September 2005 in Classes 4, 35, 39 and 40.

The Complainant also claims protection of E.ON as its company name.

The Panel considers that the Complainant's registered trademark rights are sufficient to establish rights for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Complainant is a major European energy company operating energy networks and infrastructure and providing energy-related solutions to approximately 48 million customers.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for E.ON and uses the designation extensively in connection with its business activities.

The disputed domain name, <eon-deutschland.online>, incorporates the Complainant's trademark E.ON, omitting the dot and adding a hyphen and the geographical term "deutschland", meaning Germany in German.

According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a German-language website presenting itself as the website of "E.ON Business Solutions Deutschland GmbH". The website displayed a red logo resembling the Complainant's corporate branding, referred to the address of the Complainant's headquarters at Brüsseler Platz 1, 45131 Essen, Germany, and advertised energy solutions.

Following an abuse report submitted by the Complainant, the hosting provider suspended the website. The disputed domain name nevertheless remains registered.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its E.ON trademark. The omission of the dot does not materially affect the recognisability of the trademark, while the addition of the geographical term "deutschland" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a fraudulent website impersonating the Complainant by reproducing its corporate branding, using the address of its headquarters and presenting itself as an entity belonging to the Complainant's group.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant relies in particular on the reputation of its E.ON trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the misleading content of the associated website and the Respondent's concealment of its identity.

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not submit a Response.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks 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.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the E.ON trademark through its European Union trademark registrations.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark, omitting only the dot between the letters "E" and "ON", and adds the geographical term "deutschland", separated by a hyphen. The omission of the dot does not prevent the Complainant's trademark from remaining clearly recognisable within the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the addition of the geographical term "deutschland", meaning Germany, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The term merely refers to the country in which the Complainant is headquartered and conducts business. The Panel notes that such a geographical addition may even reinforce the impression of a connection with the Complainant, although this is not necessary for the purposes of the first element of the Policy.

Furthermore, the ".online" generic Top-Level Domain is disregarded for the purposes of the comparison.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to use the E.ON trademark or that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

More importantly, the evidence submitted by the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name was used in connection with a website presenting itself as belonging to "E.ON Business Solutions Deutschland GmbH", displaying branding resembling that of the Complainant and reproducing the address of the Complainant's headquarters. The Panel considers that these circumstances strongly indicate that the Respondent sought to create the false impression that the website was operated or authorised by the Complainant or an entity affiliated with it.

The Respondent has not submitted any Response or otherwise provided evidence capable of rebutting the Complainant's prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 

The Complainant's E.ON trademark has been registered for more than two decades and is widely used in connection with the Complainant's energy business. The Panel also notes the Complainant's substantial presence in Germany and across Europe. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark and given the reputation of the Complainant and its business activities in Germany, the Panel considers it highly unlikely that the Respondent selected this combination independently and without knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

In any event, the content of the website previously associated with the disputed domain name leaves little doubt as to the Respondent's awareness of the Complainant and its trademark. The website expressly presented itself as belonging to "E.ON Business Solutions Deutschland GmbH", used branding resembling the Complainant's corporate design and reproduced the address of the Complainant's headquarters. These elements demonstrate that the Respondent deliberately sought to associate the disputed domain name and the corresponding website with the Complainant.

The Panel therefore considers that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

The Panel further considers that the use of the Complainant's corporate identity and headquarters address, combined with the presentation of energy-related services, demonstrates a deliberate attempt at impersonation. Such conduct is inherently misleading and constitutes strong evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent's identity was not publicly disclosed in the Whois information and that the website did not provide information identifying its actual operator. While the absence of publicly available registrant information does not, in itself, establish bad faith, the lack of transparency concerning the website's operator is consistent with the misleading nature of the website.

The subsequent suspension of the website by the hosting provider does not alter the Panel's conclusion. The disputed domain name remains registered, and the cessation of the website's operation following the Complainant's abuse report does not negate the Respondent's previous bad faith conduct.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the deliberate incorporation of the Complainant's trademark, the geographical reference to Germany, the impersonation of the Complainant through the associated website and the unauthorised use of its corporate branding and headquarters address, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

The Panel therefore concludes that all three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <eon-deutschland.online> be transferred to the Complainant.