{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103663",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-03-25 09:02:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "hitachi-powergrlds.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Hitachi, Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RODENBAUGH LAW",
    "respondent": [
        "St  Jude"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, a Japanese multinational company, was founded in 1919 and offers innovative, world class consumer, business, and government products and services. Hitachi Group’s products range from telecommunications and infrastructure solutions to construction machinery and electronic systems and equipment. Among its many various commercial activities, the Complainant owns a company called Hitachi ABB Power Grids which provides services to power grid operators worldwide in the following broad areas; grid connectivity, operational efficiency, quality control, security, sustainability, and digital transformation.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were created on October 12-13, 2020, respectively. These disputed domain names do not resolve to any website content. However, a phishing email has been sent to one of the Complainant’s customers using an address that incorporates the <hitachi-powergrlds.com> domain name and which mimicks the personal email address of an employee of the Complainant’s subsidiary company, Hitachi ABB Power Grids.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that each of the disputed domain names 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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "Multiple Respondents\r\n\r\nThe Whois records for the two disputed domain names identify different registrant names. However, the Complainant names these two registrants as the Respondents in this proceeding and requests that the domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated in a single UDRP proceeding.\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(f) of the Policy provides that “[i]n the event of multiple disputes between [a respondent] and a complainant, either [the respondent] or the complainant may petition to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel….” This is allowed where it “promotes the shared interests of the parties in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, reduces the potential for conflicting or inconsistent results arising from multiple proceedings, and generally furthers the fundamental objectives of the Policy.” See, e.g., MLB Advanced Media, The Phillies, Padres LP v. OreNet, Inc., D2009-0985 (WIPO Sep. 28, 2009). Further, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that “[t]he complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.” UDRP panels have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domain names are, in fact, of common ownership. WIPO Overview 3.0 at par. 4.11.2. Such factors as similarities in the Whois information, similar naming conventions in the disputed domain names, similar website resolution, etc. may lead to the conclusion that domain names with different registrant names are, nevertheless, owned by a single entity. See, e.g., Delta Dental Plans Association v. ICS INC., et al., D2014-0474 (WIPO June 16, 2014) (Consolidation of 31 domains allowed where “[t]he Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names follows an identical naming convention, namely (DELTA DENTAL marks + of + state name or two-letter state abbreviation); Cephalon Inc v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation \/ Grigorij Minin, Whois Privacy Protection Foundation \/ Artem Bogdanov, and Alex Ivanov, Evgeny Shaposhniko, D2021-0497 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2021) (while the names of the registrants of the disputed domain names are different, one factor to consider in allowing consolidation “the Domain Names were registered on two days, November 13, 2020 and November 20, 2020, with only seven days difference”).\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Registrant names for the disputed domain names differ. However, the naming pattern (i.e., the Complainant’s trademark followed by a hyphen and a misspelling of the phrase “power grid)” is used. Further, both of the disputed domain names were registered just one day apart and neither resolves to any website. The Complainant also points out that some of the address and phone information in the relevant Whois records is false or non-functional. In view of these similarities between the disputed domain names the Panel finds it more likely than not that both of them are owned by the same person and the Respondent has not participated in this case to dispute the claim of common ownership. Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds sufficient grounds to conclude that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of the two disputed domain names into this single case.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is otherwise satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Steven M. Levy, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant was founded in 1910 and has continuously used the HITACHI mark in commerce since then. The Complainant further claims ownership of many active trademark registrations for the HITACHI mark including the following:\r\n\r\nHITACHI, USA Reg No. 0701266 dated 1960-07-19;\r\nHITACHI, Japan Reg. No. 1492488 dated 1981-12-25;\r\nHITACHI, EUTM Reg. No. 000208645 dated 1999-12-21;\r\nHITACHI, EUTM Reg. No. 001070192 dated 2000-09-19;\r\nHITACHI, EUTM Reg. No. 002364313 dated 2002-11-27;\r\nHITACHI, EUTM Reg. No. 002809903 dated 2003-10-03;\r\nHITACHI, United Kingdom Reg. No. UK00000811836 dated 1960-10-11.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HITACHI-POWERGRLDS.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "HITACHI-POWERQRIDS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}