{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102845", "time_of_filling": "2020-01-02 10:24:03", "domain_names": [ "mypentairbenfits.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pentair Flow Service AG" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Pentair Group of companies is involved in the business of water treatment. The Complainant, Pentair Flow Services AG, is a subsidiary of Pentair Plc and part of the Pentair Group of companies. Pentair Plc was incorporated in Ireland, with its main US office located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Pentair Group has numerous subsidiaries around the world, hiring 10,000 employees in approximately 110 locations in 30 countries.\r\n\r\nAn affiliate of the Complainant, Pentair Inc, is the registrant for multiple domain names that include the word PENTAIR, including , registered on October 17, 1996, , registered on March 19, 2014, and , registered on June 14, 2019.\r\n\r\nThere are four disputed domain names in the present case:\r\n\r\n- created on November 11, 2019;\r\n\r\n- created on December 14, 2019;\r\n\r\n- created on November 11, 2019; and\r\n\r\n- created on June 14, 2019.", "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": "COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the complaint be consolidated against multiple respondents as the disputed domain names are subject to common control and consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also requests that the proceedings be held in English.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the PENTAIR mark on the basis that the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s PENTAIR mark in its entirety, and that the addition of the words “my”, “benefit”, intentional misspellings of the word “benefits”, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” are insufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the 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 affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent 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 Respondent should have known of the PENTAIR mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith as the disputed domain names resolve to webpages containing Pay-Per-Click links (“PPC links”). \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.\r\n\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\nProcedural Issue: Consolidation of Complainant Against Multiple Respondents\r\n\r\nAlthough the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Policy\" or \"UDRP\") and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\") do not expressly provide for the consolidation of multiple respondents in a single administrative proceeding, previous panels have held that panels have the authority to order the consolidation of multiple domain name disputes where the domain names or corresponding websites are (i) subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2; Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No. D2010-0281; and Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302).\r\n\r\nFor ease of reference in considering the possible consolidation question, the Panel has numbered the disputed domain names as follows:\r\n\r\n1. created on November 11, 2019, with the registrar Dynadot LLC and by the registrant named “Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot”;\r\n\r\n2. created on December 14, 2019, with the registrar West263 International Ltd by the registrant named “Cun Shuo Zhang”;\r\n\r\n3. created on November 11, 2019, with the registrar Cloud Yuqu LLC by the registrant named “Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot”; and\r\n\r\n 4. created on June 14, 2019, with the registrar NameSilo LLC and by the registrant named “shi lei”.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes the following similarities between the disputed domain names:\r\n\r\n- All 4 disputed domain names use the PENTAIR mark and have a similar pattern of including either the word “benefit”, or misspellings of the word “benefits”;\r\n\r\n- All 4 disputed domain names resolve to webpages containing PPC links;\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain names 1 and 3 were registered on the same day using the same privacy service, although the registrars are different;\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain names 2, 3 and 4 share a common IP address;\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain names 2 and 3 share a common registrant city and state;\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain names 1, 2 and 3 share a common DNS during registration; and\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain names 2, 3 and 4 share common DNS as of December 23, 2019.\r\n\r\n\r\nOn the balance of probabilities, the Panel is of the view that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain names are subject to common ownership or control. Given the fact that the Respondents did not respond to the Complaint or challenge the Complainant’s evidence, the Panel finds evidence of such common control to be appropriate to justify the consolidation of the Complainant’s claims against the registrants of the disputed domain names in this proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe Panel concludes in the circumstances of this case that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties, and procedurally efficient. The Panel, therefore, will allow the consolidation as requested by the Complainant pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules and the Panel shall thus refer to the Respondents as the Respondent.\r\n\r\n\r\nProcedural 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 Agreements for the disputed domain names and is Chinese, while the language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names and is English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s language request.\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.” (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:\r\n\r\n(i) All four disputed domain names consist of Latin letters, rather than Chinese letters;\r\n\r\n(ii) All four disputed domain names contain English words, including the words “my”, “benefit” and misspellings of the word “benefits”;\r\n\r\n(iii) The disputed domain names , and , resolve to websites displaying PPC links in English;\r\n\r\n(iv) The Complainant has no knowledge of Chinese, and in the present case, the use of a language other than English would impose a significant burden on the Complainant in view of the facts in question; \r\n\r\n(v) The case involves the consolidation of the disputed domain name into a single case where some of the registration agreements are in the English language; and\r\n\r\n(vi) The Respondents did not object to the request that the language of the proceedings shall be English.\r\n\r\nUpon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Jonathan Agmon" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of multiple registrations for the word mark PENTAIR and marks incorporating the word PENTAIR, including Chinese Trademark No. 11517820 registered on August 21, 2015, Chinese Trademark No. 11519174 registered on August 21, 2014, and European Trademark No. 010829117 registered on December 12, 2012.", "decision_domains": { "MYPENTAIRBENFITS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PENTAIRBENEFIT.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "MYPENTAIRBENIFITS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "MYPENTAIRBENEFIT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }