{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103755", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-30 09:38:12", "domain_names": [ "pentairpumps.shop", "pentairpoolfilters.shop", "pentairfilters.shop", "pentairfilters.ltd", "pentairpumps.ltd ", "pentairpoolpumps.ltd" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pentair Flow Services AG" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Li Si Heng" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Pentair Flow Services AG, is a subsidiary of Pentair Plc established in the United States in 1966. The parent company is part of the Pentair Group which is a water treatment organization and its business includes pool and spa solutions. The Pentair Group comprises of many subsidiaries worldwide, including Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration, Inc, Pentair Inc, and the Complainant, among other companies. The Pentair Group has offices in over 120 locations in 125 countries with 10,000 employees and its revenue in 2019 was over USD 3 billion. The Complainant uses the above domain names to inform potential customers about its PENTAIR mark, related brands and its products and services.\r\n\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 name.", "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 terms “pool”, “filters” and “pumps” are descriptive and do not serve to avoid the finding of confusing similarity. The addition of the generic top-level domain name suffixes (“gTLD”) \".ltd\", “.shop” and \".ink\" are also insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its PENTAIR mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names. In addition, the Respondents are not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant licensed or authorized the Respondents to use the PENTAIR mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith as the Respondents should have known of the Complainant’s PENTAIR mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondents are attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondents‘ websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents‘ website or of a product or service on the Respondents‘ website.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:", "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 Respondents 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: “(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 in Chinese.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n(i) the disputed domain names are in English;\r\n(ii) the language of the disputed domain name are the same as the Complainant’s mark; and\r\n(iii) the websites in which the disputed domain names resolve to are all in English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondents 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 Respondents 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 Respondents, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese. \r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Consolidation of Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 10(e) of the Rules provides that:\r\n\r\n“A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.”\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , , , , , and were registered during within 3 weeks, from March 18 to April 8, 2021. All of the disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s trademark in its entirely with six out of seven of the domain names also including a product term of \"filters“, \"pumps“, \"pool filters“ or \"pool pumps“. Six out of seven of the disputed domain names resolve to similar or the same Shopify style template listing poll filters associated with a non-working Amazon link. Six out of seven of the disputed domain names are also registered with the registrar, DNSPod, Inc. Four of the disputed domain names were registered by \"li si heng“ and the remaining three were registered by \"chicui“. Both registrants are located in \"hu bei sheng“ in China and use the same contact email format comprising a nine digit number followed by \"@qq.com“. Further, all of the disputed domain names share the same naming pattern and resolve to inactive pages. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is guided by section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“the WIPO Overview 3.0”) and is of the view that given that the disputed domain names were registered around the same period, by registrants which share similar contact information and naming patterns and that the websites in which the disputed domain names resolve to are largely similar, the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that it would be fair and equitable to consolidate the proceedings for procedural efficiency.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Jonathan Agmon" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the following word and figurative PENTAIR trademarks in the China and Switzerland:\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 3941316 registered on December 21, 2005;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 3504313 registered on May 14, 2011;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 3941324 registered on September 14, 2006;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 10871905 registered on November 14, 2015;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 11517820 registered on August 21, 2015;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 10871907 registered on August 28, 2015;\r\n-\tChina Trademark Registration No. 11519174 registered on August 21, 2014;\r\n-\tSwiss Trademark Registration No. 675144 registered on July 2, 2015; \r\n-\tCTM Trademark Registration No. 010829117 registered on December 12, 2012; and\r\n-\tU.S. Trademark Registration No. 85666254 registered on July 19, 2016.\r\n\r\nAn affiliated company of the Complainant, Pentair Inc., owns domain name registrations which contain the PENTAIR trademark, , and .\r\n", "decision_domains": { "PENTAIRPUMPS.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIR.INK": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRPOOLFILTERS.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRFILTERS.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRFILTERS.LTD": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRPUMPS.LTD ": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRPOOLPUMPS.LTD": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }