{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105574",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-07-12 09:36:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "krupp-alloy.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Dr. Claudia Pappas (thyssenkrupp AG)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "zhuo yang gang tie shang hai you xian gong si"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span>The Complainant is a diversified industrial group with more than 100.000 employees and revenue of more than 34 billion EUR in fiscal 2010\/2021. It is one of the world's largest producers of steel and was ranked tenth-largest worldwide by revenue in 2015. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant&rsquo;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. These areas are divided into business units and operating units. In 56 countries, 335 subsidiaries and 22 investments accounted for by the equity method are included in the consolidated financial statements. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant&rsquo;s product portfolio includes &ldquo;steel&rdquo;, &ldquo;metals&rdquo;, &ldquo;alloys&rdquo;, &ldquo;rolled steel&rdquo;, &ldquo;stainless steel&rdquo;, &ldquo;nonferrous metals&rdquo;, &ldquo;hot strip&rdquo;, &ldquo;heavy plate&rdquo;, &ldquo;sheet and coated products&rdquo;, &ldquo;organic coated strip and sheet&rdquo;, &ldquo;composite material&rdquo;, &ldquo;electrical steel&rdquo;, &ldquo;packaging steel&rdquo;, &ldquo;precision steel strip&rdquo;, &ldquo;submarines&rdquo;, &ldquo;naval surface vessels&rdquo;, &ldquo;naval services&rdquo;, &ldquo;steering&rdquo;, &ldquo;dampers&rdquo;, &ldquo;springs and stabilizers&rdquo;, &ldquo;axle assembly&rdquo;, &ldquo;camshafts&rdquo;, &ldquo;crankshafts and conrods&rdquo;, &ldquo;bearings&rdquo;, &ldquo;undercarriages&rdquo;, &ldquo;chemical plants&rdquo;, &ldquo;coke plant technologies&rdquo;, &ldquo;industrial plant services&rdquo;, &ldquo;cement plants&rdquo;, &ldquo;mining and mineral solutions&rdquo;, &ldquo;automotive plants&rdquo;, &ldquo;materials handling&rdquo;, &ldquo;planning and technical assessments&rdquo;, &ldquo;system integration&rdquo;, &ldquo;automation solutions&rdquo;, &ldquo;handling and transport&rdquo;, &ldquo;jigs and tools&rdquo;, &ldquo;assembly lines&rdquo;, &ldquo;plastics&rdquo;, &ldquo;materials services (processing)&rdquo;, &ldquo;logistics services&rdquo;, and &ldquo;infrastructure projects and services&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from maintaining a significant trademark portfolio, the Complainant also maintains a strong online presence and operates its main webpage at &ldquo;www.thyssenkrupp.com&rdquo;, which it registered on December 5, 1996. The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous additional domain names containing its trademark and company name &ldquo;krupp&rdquo; and &ldquo;thyssenkrupp&rdquo;, including &lt;krupp.com&gt;; &lt;krupp.de&gt; and &lt;krupp.cn&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>The KRUPP trademarks significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name in 2022.&nbsp;<\/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 name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>The Complainant submits that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. The Complainant makes a number of legal arguments (referenced below) and also supplies a set of annexes providing evidence of its activities and of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<div>\n<div>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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": "<p>Language of the Proceedings:<\/p>\n<p>Under 11 of the UDRP Rules, the default language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. The language of the registration agreement is Chinese, but Complainant requests the Panel to accept Amended Complaint in English. The Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n<p>English is a neutral language and the disputed domain name and all its content are in English<strong>.&nbsp;<\/strong>This is a clear indication that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of that language to conduct not only business but also these proceedings in English. Since English is the world trade language and therefore the most important language for international communication it is obvious that the Respondent uses this language with the intention of attracting consumers worldwide, beyond the Chinese market.<\/p>\n<p>lt has been found sufficient if persuasive evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. In this case there is ample evidence as the phishing emails sent by the Respondent are all in Englisch. This fact is a clear indication that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of the English language to conduct these proceedings in English.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the Complainant argues that determining Chinese as the language of the proceedings would lead to considerable disadvantages for the Complainant. It has to be pointed out that the Complainant has no knowledge at all of the Chinese language. Accordingly, it would be necessary to use an external translation agency to do the translations. Considering the fact that not only the Complaint as such but also the Annexes would have to be translated, the translation would take some time and would therefore lead to a significant delay of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, 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.<\/p>\n<p>It would be both procedurally and economically efficient to proceed in English.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the above factors, the Respondent was notified of the proceedings in both English and Chinese. No response was filed.<\/p>\n<p>Taking the above factors and in particular the fact that English language emails were sent from the English language website under the disputed domain name into consideration, the Panel accepts that the Respondent can be presumed to have sufficient knowledge of English and would not be unduly prejudiced by the proceedings being conducted in English. In keeping with the Policy aim of facilitating a relatively time and cost-efficient procedure for the resolution of domain name disputes, and in accordance with Rule 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules, the Panel determines that it would be appropriate for English to be the language of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<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>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>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Udo Pfleghar B.A. (Melb.)"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous international and national trademark registrations for the word mark &ldquo;krupp&rdquo; and &ldquo;KRUPP&rdquo; and of national trademark registrations consisting of or including the mark &ldquo;krupp&rdquo; or &ldquo;KRUPP&rdquo; in many other countries.<\/p>\n<p><span>These trademarks include, inter alia:<br \/><br \/><\/span><span><\/span><span><\/span>- EUTM 016785982 krupp, registered on October 30, 2017 in classes 01, 06, 07, 09, 11, 12, 17, 19, 28, 37 and 42;<\/p>\n<p>- WO 1407236 krupp, registered on September 20, 2017 in classes 01, 06, 07, 09, 11, 12, 17, 19, 28, 37 and 42;<\/p>\n<p>- CN 26725193 krupp, registered on March 7, 2019 in class 01;<\/p>\n<p><span>- CN 32418536 krupp, registered on August 14, 2019 in class 06.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "krupp-alloy.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}