The Complainant “Thyssenkrupp AG” is the result of a merger of two well-known German steel companies, Thyssen AG and Krupp both founded in the 19th century. In 1997, the two companies combined their flat steel activities, with a full merger completed in March 1999. The Krupp company once was the largest company in Europe. The Complainant is a diverse industrial group with more than 100, 000 employees and a revenue of more than 34 billion EUR in fiscal 2010\/2021. It is one of the world's largest steel producers and was ranked tenth-largest worldwide by revenue in 2015. The Complainant’s business operations are organized in five business areas: Steel Europe, Bearings and Forged Technologies, Automotive Technology, Marine Systems and Materials Services and Multi Tracks. In 56 countries, 335 subsidiaries and 22 investments accounted for by the equity method are included in the consolidated financial statements. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on March 29, 2023.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
(i) The Complainant has rights in KRUPP mark by means of several international and national trademark registrations, inter alia<\/em>, international trademark registration (Reg. No. IDM000109081 registered on February 9, 2007); German national trademark registration (Reg. No. 123949 registered on December 3, 1909); and Chinese national trademark registration (Reg. No. 26725193 registered on March 7, 2019). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's KRUPP mark.<\/p>\n (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: There are no indications that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name. Further, the Respondent does not use the domain name for non-commercial purposes. The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any of its trademarks, nor has it been authorized to register or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and company name. Rather, the Respondent has no connection at all with the Complainant or any of its affiliates. The Respondent thus registered the disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s well-known trademarks at least in order to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation. Such use is neither a bona fide <\/em>use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. <\/p>\n (iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the KRUPP mark; (ii) the Complainant’s company name as well as its trademarks “thyssenkrupp” have a strong reputation and are widely known not only in Germany but also in many other countries in the world; and (iii) neither Thyssen nor Krupp nor the combination of both has a specific meaning in any language. Considering all these circumstances it has to be inferred passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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).<\/p>",
"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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See<\/em> Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see<\/em> also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). The Complainant contends that (i) English is a neutral language; (ii) the disputed domain name and all content of the domain name’s resolving website are in English, which indicates that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of the English language to conduct these proceedings in English; (iii) determining Chinese as the language of the proceedings would lead to considerable disadvantages for the Complainant. The Complainant has no knowledge at all of the Chinese language. The translation would take some time and would therefore lead to a significant delay of the proceedings; (iv) determining Chinese as the language of the proceedings would give the Respondents a clear advantage although it is obvious that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith; and (v) it would be both procedurally and economically efficient to proceed in English. <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of the Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark KRUPP by means of several international and national trademark registrations, inter alia<\/em>, international trademark registration (Reg. No. IDM000109081 registered on February 9, 2007); German national trademark registration (Reg. No. 123949 registered on December 3, 1909); and Chinese national trademark registration (Reg. No. 26725193 registered on March 7, 2019). The Complainant also maintains a strong online presence and operates its main webpage at “www.thyssenkrupp.com,” which was registered on December 5, 1996.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"www.krupp-materials.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}