{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103871", "time_of_filling": "2021-06-22 09:15:49", "domain_names": [ "Philips-helper.com ", "Phil-rem.com", "Philips-ru.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V." ], "complainant_representative": "Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.", "respondent": [ "Alexander Kleshchin" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the producer of a wide spectrum of products including consumer electronics, domestic appliances, security systems and semiconductors. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent Nikita Magomedov registered the disputed domain names and on 20 August 2020, and the disputed domain name on 23 November 2020. The Respondent Alexander Kleshchin registered the disputed domain name on 30 September 2020, the disputed domain name on 11 December 2020, and the disputed domain name on 16 December 2020.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names resolve to almost identical websites that offer repair services in respect of Philips-branded products and describe the entity that offers these services as an official service centre for such products.\r\n\r\n\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 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 submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known PHILIPS trademark, because they incorporate this trademark in its entirety in combination with a descriptive or generic term either before or after the trademark, such as “helper”, “aid”, “assist”, “rem”, “ru” and “remont“. There may be a greater risk of confusion where the additional words are descriptive of the wares or services with which the trademark is ordinarily used, because there is an increased chance that Internet users will believe the respective domain name resolves to a website that is owned by or affiliated with the trademark owner.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the PHILIPS trademark, because it contains the dominant feature of this trademark combined with the element “rem”, which is used as an acronym for “remont” - the Russian word for “repairs”. The content of the website associated to this disputed domain name is identical to the websites associated to the five other disputed domain names, and the Respondents are passing itself off as an official service centre for the Complainant’s products, which supports a conclusion that they chose this disputed domain name because they believed that it was confusingly similar to the PHILIPS trademark of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondents to use the PHILIPS trademark and the Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered between August and December 2020, which is many years after the Complainant started using the PHILIPS trademark, and have not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Respondents are using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to their websites which falsely describe the Respondents as an official Philips service centre and contain no disclaimer. According to the Complainant, this is in breach of the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, because the websites do not accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder, which is the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It points out that the PHILIPS trademark is well known around the world, so the Respondents must have registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of that trademark and targeting it. The Respondents are trying to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the PHILIPS trademark, registering 6 variations of domain names containing the PHILIPS trademark together with descriptive terms. The Complainant also submits that Respondents attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to their own websites by exploiting the popularity of the Complainant’s trademarks and misleading Internet users that the Respondents are an official repair centre for the Complainant’s products. Further, the Respondents did not respond to the Complainant’s takedown requests sent to the registrants of the disputed domain names, the respective webhosts and to the Registrars of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENTS:\r\n\r\nThe Respondents did not submit a Response in this proceeding.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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\nConsolidation of the disputes in respect of the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests consolidation of the disputes in respect of the disputed domain names into a single proceeding. It submits that although some of the disputed domain names show different registrant details in their respective WhoIs records, all disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert. In support of this statement, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain names resolve to substantially identical websites and all of them apart from one resolve to the same IP address, while the disputed domain name resolves to a nearby IP address in the same netblock, assigned to the same organization, and that all of the disputed domain names have the same format, containing the well-known PHILIPS trademark and a generic term, separated by a hyphen. \r\n\r\nNone of the listed registrants of the disputed domain names has submitted a formal Response or objected to the consolidation request of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nParagraph 10(e) of the Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes, and paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. As discussed in section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, UDRP panels look at whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. UDRP panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other arguments made by the complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown good reasons why the consolidation of the Respondents and the disputes related to the disputed domain names in a single proceeding is justified and appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence in the case file shows that the websites associated to the disputed domain names are indeed almost identical in content and appearance and describe the entity whose services are offered on the websites as an official service centre for Philips appliances, without specifying its name and address. The registrant of , and is Nikita Magomedov, while the registrant of , and is Alexander Kleshchin. However, the telephone number specified on the website at (whose registrant is Nikita Magomedov) is the same as the telephone number specified on the websites at , and (whose registrant is Alexander Kleshchin). This is sufficient for the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain names are under common control.\r\n\r\nNone of the Respondents has advanced any reasons why it may not be equitable to allow the consolidation of the disputes. It appears that the consolidation would lead to greater procedural efficiency, and the Panel is not aware of any reasons why the consolidation would not be fair and equitable to all Parties.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel decides to allow the consolidation of the disputes in relation to all of the disputed domain names in the present proceeding.\r\n\r\n\r\nLanguage of the proceeding\r\n\r\nAccording to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names , and is Russian. Under paragraph 11 of the Rules, 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 Complainant requests the language of this administrative proceeding to be English. It submits that the Respondent can understand this language, because the language of the registration agreement for three of the disputed domain names is English, and the disputed domain names and contain the English words “aid” and “assist”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondents have not objected to the Complainant’s request on the language of the proceeding and have not expressed any opinion on the issue. As noted by the Complainant, the language of the Registration Agreements the disputed domain names , and is English, and as discussed above, it appears that all disputed domain names are under common control. Three of the disputed domain names contain English words such as “aid”, “assist” and “helper”. These circumstances support a conclusion that the person who controls all of the disputed domain names understands English and that the Respondent would not be disadvantaged if the language of the proceeding is English.\r\n\r\nNeither of the Parties has bought forward any arguments that using the English language in this proceeding would not be fair and efficient. \r\n\r\nIn view of the above, and in exercise of its powers under paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of this administrative proceeding will be English. At the same time, the Panel will take into account the evidence in the case file that is in the Russian language.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Assen Alexiev" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign “PHILIPS” (the “PHILIPS trademark”):\r\n\r\n- the International trademark PHILIPS with registration No.310459, registered on 16 March 1966 for goods in International Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 31 and 34 in numerous jurisdictions; \r\n\r\n- the International trademark PHILIPS with registration No.991346, registered on 13 June 2008 for goods and services in International Classes 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44 and 45 in numerous jurisdictions, including the Russian Federation, where the Respondents are located and where the services featured on the websites at the disputed domain names are offered; and\r\n\r\n- the European Union trademark PHILIPS with registration No. 000205971, registered on 22 October 1999 for goods and services in International Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "PHILIPS-HELPER.COM ": "TRANSFERRED", "PHILIPS-AID.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PHIL-REM.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PHILIPS-RU.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PHILIPS-ASSIST.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "REMONT-PHILIPS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }