{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105279",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-03-10 10:45:57",
    "domain_names": [
        "wwwpentairbenefits.com",
        "pentairbenifits.com",
        "pentairbenfits.com ",
        "wwwmypentairbenefits.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Pentair Flow Services AG "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "li jiang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, is a business within the Pentair Group of companies (&ldquo;Pentair Group&rdquo;). The Complainant is a leader in the water industry, composed of companies around the world, including Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration Solutions LLC, Pentair Filtration, Inc., Pentair Inc., and the Complainant, among others.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Pentair Group, founded in 1966, has approximately 135 locations in 26 countries, with more than 11,000 employees; on 2022 its net sales were approximately of $4.1 billion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant has multiple Trademark Registrations around the world, including in China, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has online presence through the following domain names &lt;pentair.com&gt;, registered on October 17, 1996; &lt;pentair.net&gt;, registered on December 25, 2003; &lt;pentair.org&gt;, registered on November 3, 2010; and &lt;pentairbenefits.com&gt;, registered on March 19, 2014, owned by Pentair Inc. an affiliated Complainant&rsquo;s company.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain names &lt;<strong>wwwpentairbenefits.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on <strong>October 28, 2022<\/strong>; &lt;<strong>pentairbenifits.com<\/strong>&gt;, &lt;<strong>pentairbenfits.com<\/strong>&gt; and &lt;<strong>wwwmypentairbenefits.com<\/strong>&gt; (all these three) were registered on <strong>October 27, 2022<\/strong>. The disputed domain names resolve to a website with pay-per-click (&ldquo;PPC&rdquo;) generic and commercial links, with potential malicious content.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><strong>Response<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Respondent did not submit any communication during the entire proceeding, nor has submit its Response replying to Complainant's contentions.<\/p>\n<p><u>Complainant Contentions<\/u>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p>The Complainant requests the Consolidation of the proceedings, based on the following factors: &ldquo;(i) Three of the four disputed domain names, namely com, pentairbenifits.com and pentairbenfits.com were registered on the same day. The remaining disputed domain name, namely &lt;wwwmypentairbenefits.com&gt;, was registered just one day later; (ii) The disputed domain names contain similarly non-coincidental typo variants of the term &ldquo;mypentairbenefits&rdquo;, a term which is incorporated in domain owned by the Pentair Group. Is inconceivable that the registration of variants of this term could be mere coincidence; (iii) The disputed domain names share the same IP location and the same or similar pay-per-click content; (iv) The disputed domain names com and pentairbenifits.com share the same IP address while pentairbenfits.com and wwwmypentairbenefits.com also share the same IP address; and (v) The disputed domain names were all registered by the same registrar: Cosmotown, Inc.&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant&rsquo;s Trademark PENTAIR. That the four disputed domain names directly and entirely incorporate Complainant&rsquo;s Trademark PENTAIR along with typo variants of the relevant term &ldquo;benefits.&rdquo; That the minor misspellings (&ldquo;typosquatting&rdquo;) and the addition of dictionary or descriptive term to a complainant&rsquo;s mark are not material to a finding of confusing similarity, citing sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (\"WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0\").<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, due to are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. That at the time of the preparation of the Complaint, the disputed domain names, depending on the browser, resolved to pay-per-click websites showing generic links or a browser warning alert regarding a malicious website, where such distribution has been confirmed as not a <em>bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, citing <em>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2018-0717. The Complainant also contends that the use of typo variants of the term &ldquo;benefit&rdquo; was calculated by Respondent to take advantage of Pentair employees and prospective employees and other interested stakeholders who would be likely to undertake internet searches based on variants of the term &ldquo;Pentair Benefits&rdquo;, citing Section 2.9 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. That the Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the disputed domain names and would have quickly learnt that Complainant owns the Trademarks and about its extensive use. Also, that the Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any of its Trademarks, and Complainant does not have any other relationship or association or connection with Respondent.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that it has not found any evidence that Respondent has made any known legitimate, non-commercial use of the disputed domain dames. The websites associated with the disputed domain names are not being used for the purposes of information or criticism or any other use that could potentially be deemed fair use.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, due to Complainant&rsquo;s business and Trademark reputation, that the incorporation of the Trademark PENTAIR and the term BENFENITS in the disputed domain names, with its corresponding typos and\/or addition of generic terms, infers the Respondent&rsquo;s knowledge and bad faith targeting, citing Section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p>The Complainant contends that the use of a domain name other than to host a website may constitute bad faith; that such purposes include sending email, phishing, or identity theft. The Complainant also pointed out that at least two of the disputed domain names had or have active MX records, meaning that e-mails could be sent from &lt;pentairbenefits.com&gt; variant e-mail addresses which would be likely to make a recipient believe that it was a legitimate communication from Complainant, or at least somehow connected to or endorsed by Complainant.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that Respondent&rsquo;s lack of response to its Cease-and-Desist Letter of March 2, 2023, emphasizes its bad faith. That the use of PPC&rsquo;s links with potential malicious content, means that Respondent took advantage of Complainant&rsquo;s Trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent&rsquo;s products, services, website or location. Also, that the Respondent intentionally chose the disputed domain names based on the widely registered and used Trademark PENTAIR, along with typo variants of the relevant term &ldquo;benefits&rdquo;, in order to try to generate more traffic to its own business; that pursuant paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant&rsquo;s Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "rights": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>About the Consolidation Request<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to the evidence submitted, the Complaint has been filed by one single Complainant, entitled to the Trademark Rights, the disputed domain names were registered by the single revealed Respondent, therefore and Pursuant to paragraph 4(f) of the Policy and paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, this Panel grants Complainant&rsquo;s Consolidation Request.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "María Alejandra López García"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-04-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, is a business within the Pentair Group of companies (&ldquo;Pentair Group&rdquo;). The Complainant is a leader in the water industry, composed of companies around the world, including Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration Solutions LLC, Pentair Filtration, Inc., Pentair Inc., and the Complainant, among others.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant owns the following Trademarks:<\/p>\n<p>- Chinese Trademark PENTAIR AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 11517821, IC 35, filed on September 20, 2012, registered on August 21, 2014 and in force until August 20, 2024;<\/p>\n<p>- Chinese Trademark PENTAIR AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 3504734, IC 21, filed on March 28, 2003, registered on April 28, 2006, and in force until April 27, 2026;<\/p>\n<p>- US Trademark PENTAIR, Reg. No. 2573714, IC 7, filed on April 28, 2000, registered on May 28, 2002, and in force until May 28, 2032; First Use in Commerce: January 4, 1999;<\/p>\n<p>- US Trademark PENTAIR, Reg. No. 4348967, IC 7, IC 9, IC 11 and IC 20, filed on April 20, 2012, registered on June 11, 2013, and in force until June 12, 2023; First Use in Commerce: January 4, 1999 and September 1, 2000;<\/p>\n<p>- EUIPO Trademark PENTAIR AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 011008414, IC 6, IC 7, IC 9, CI 11 and IC 42, filed on July 2, 2012, registered on January 23, 2013, and in force until July 2, 2032.<\/p>\n<p>- Swiss Trademark PENTAIR AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 675144, IC 6, IC 7, IC 9, IC 11, IC 17, IC 35, IC 36, IC 37, IC 40, IC 41 and IC 42, filed (beginning of term of protection) on October 26, 2012, and in force until October 26, 2032; and<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">- Canadian Trademark PENTAIR AND DESIGN, Reg. No. TMA1025371, IC 6, IC 7, IC 9, IC 11, IC 17, IC 35, IC 36, IC 37, IC 40, IC 41, IC 42 and IC 45, filed on October 23, 2012, registered on June 13, 2019, and in force until June 13, 2034.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "wwwpentairbenefits.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "pentairbenifits.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "pentairbenfits.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
        "wwwmypentairbenefits.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}