{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103698", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-06 10:45:20", "domain_names": [ "PentairPoolPumps.shop", "PentairPoolProducts.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pentair Flow Service AG" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Li Si Heng" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, Pentair Flow Services AG, is part of the Pentair Group which comprises of many subsidiaries worldwide, including the Complainant, Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration, Inc, Pentair Inc and so forth. Pentair Group is a water treatment organization with its parent company, Pentair Plc, incorporation in Ireland and its main U.S. office in Minneapolis, Minnesota which was founded in the U.S. in 1966. Currently, then Pentair Group operates from approximately 120 locations in 25 countries with 10,000 employees. Its revenue in 2019 was over USD 3 billion.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names, and , were registered on January 31, 2021 and December 27, 2020 respectively which resolve to inactive websites.\r\n", "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.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the PENTAIR marks on the basis that the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of associated words “pool”, “products” and “pool”, “pumps” respectively and generic top-level domain name suffix (“gTLD”) “.shop” are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its PENTAIR marks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent to use the PENTAIR marks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s PENTAIR marks at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or of a product or service on the Respondent’s websites.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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": "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.\r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that:\r\n\r\n“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names and are Chinese.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n(i) the disputed domain names are in English;\r\n\r\n(ii) the disputed domain names’ websites were in English; and\r\n\r\n(iii) the proceeding will be put through unnecessary trouble and delay if Chinese were made the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel cites the following with approval: “Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006 0004).\r\n\r\nHaving considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account their selection of the English-language trademark and the domain names in dispute. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese. \r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Jonathan Agmon" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations of PENTAIR and PENTAIR-formative marks (collectively, the “PENTAIR marks”) including in China, Switzerland and U.S.:\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 3504316 registered on December 21, 2005 in China; \r\n\r\n- Registration No. 3504312 registered on December 28, 2004 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 3504313 registered on May 14, 2011 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 3941324 registered on September 14, 2006 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 10871905 registered on November 14, 2015 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 11517820 registered on August 28, 2015 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 10871907 registered on August 28, 2015 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 11519174 registered on August 21, 2014 in China;\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 675144 registered on July 2, 2015 in Switzerland; and\r\n\r\n- Registration No. 5003584 registered on July 19, 2016 in U.S.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also holds the domain name registrations which contain the PENTAIR marks, and . \r\n", "decision_domains": { "PENTAIRPOOLPUMPS.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRPOOLPRODUCTS.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }