{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105569",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-07-10 12:41:03",
    "domain_names": [
        "siemens-healtineers.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Li Jiang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, Siemens Trademark GmbH &amp; Co. KG, is a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks at issue within Siemens Group. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, which is the ultimate mother company of the Siemens Group. The turnover of the Siemens Group in 2022 was 72 billion Euro, and the group employs more than 300.000 people worldwide.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Siemens Group, founded more than 175 years ago, is headquartered in Berlin and Munich. It is one of the world&rsquo;s largest corporations, providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries, and it is active among many other multiple fields, in the field of Medicine, Automation and Control, Power, Transportation, Logistics, Information and Communications.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Siemens Healthineers, is another company of the Siemens Group, is one of the largest manufacturers of medical equipment worldwide, with approximately 54.000 employees.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Apart from its Trademarks, the Complainant also owns, through one of its subsidiaries, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, the following domain names &lt;siemens-healthineer.com&gt;, registered since March 15, 2016 and &lt;siemens-healthineers.com&gt; registered since March 15, 2016.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name &lt;<strong>siemens-healtineers.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on <strong>August 22, 2022<\/strong>, and by the time of this Decision resolves to a website with PPC links, directing to websites operated by potential competitors of the Complainant.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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><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;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name &lt;siemens-healtineers.com&gt; is confusingly similar to its trademarks SIEMENS and SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS; that when it comes to the Complainant&rsquo;s first Trademark, SIEMENS, it tis integrally reproduced within the disputed domain name; as for the Complainant&rsquo;s second Trademark, SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS, the disputed domain name only differs from it in the absence of the letter &ldquo;h&rdquo; in the domain's second component which has a minor phonetical impact in the overall impression of the terms under comparison; that namely, the term &ldquo;healthineers&rdquo; appears in the contested domain as &ldquo;healtineers&rdquo;; that such misspelling is a typical case of &ldquo;typosquatting&rdquo;, where the infringing domain name differs in merely one or two letters from the Complainant's trademark.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the SIEMENS trademark is well recognized as a symbol of the highest quality of the concerned goods and services; that by virtue of the long use and the renown of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks SIEMENS and SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS, these are exclusively associated with the Siemens Group, and, in this case in particular, with its affiliated company, Siemens Healthcare GmbH (Siemens Healthineers). The reputation associated with the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks is excellent, stemming from the impeccable quality of the Siemens AG&rsquo;s goods and services.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that due to the high reputation of the trademark SIEMENS, the public will automatically recognize the trademarks SIEMENS and SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS and will associate the domain in dispute with the Siemens Group. The Internet users will think that the disputed domain name and a potential corresponding website belongs to the Siemens Group, providing services under the trademarks SIEMENS and SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS; which is reinforced by the fact that the Siemens Group is the owner of the domain names &lt;siemens-healthineers.com&gt; and &lt;siemens-healthineer.com&gt;, which are visually almost identical to the disputed domain name.<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 name, due to the Respondent is not and has never been one of the Complainant&rsquo;s representatives, employees or one of its licensees, nor is otherwise authorized to use the trademarks SIEMENS or SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS; that the Complainant does not have any connection with the Respondent; that no such relation has ever been established between the Respondent and Siemens AG, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is currently not in use and is parked with the Registrar; that when accessing &ldquo;siemens-healtineers.com&rdquo; users encounter adds in the form of hyperlinks reading &ldquo;Digital Health Platform&rdquo;, &ldquo;Covid-19 Testing&rdquo;, and other links; meaning that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent has not been commonly known with the disputed domain name.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the Complainant&rsquo;s Trademarks have long and extensive use at a worldwide level, decades prior to the registration of the disputed name, making obvious that the Respondent was well aware of the existence of its Trademarks, whose status and reputation has been assessed in various UDRP Decisions in the past, citing: <em>Siemens AG v. Dorofeev,&nbsp; Konstantin,<\/em> WIPO Case No. D2013-0923; <em>Siemens AG v. Mr. Ozgul Fatih<\/em>, WIPO Case&nbsp; D2010-1771 and <em>Nokia Corporation, Siemens AG, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy v. Chen Fang Fang<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2008-1908; that nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation between the Respondent and the Siemens Group, which seems to be the Respondent&rsquo;s actual intention in registering the disputed domain name, showing that the Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and that there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent would not aim at misleadingly diverting consumers and Internet users to other sites, searching for the legitimate websites of the Siemens Group, who may mistype the Complainant's Trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith due to the Respondent knew about the Complainant&rsquo;s Trademarks SIEMENS and SIEMENS HEALTHINEER, by deliberately registering the disputed domain name which identically contains the famous Trademark SIEMENS and is highly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s combined Trademark SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS; that the Respondent intended to usurp the strong global reputation of such Trademarks, in order to confuse the public and cause damage to the Complainant in disrupting its business.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith due to the disputed domain does not show substantial content; that even the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith, citing: <em>Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; <em>Siemens AG v. yinsi baohu yi kai qi \/ li zhe, zhe li<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2017-0375; that the Respondent has &ldquo;parked&rdquo; the disputed domain name within the Registrar aiming to, either: 1. lure the Complainant into offering to buy the domain from the Respondent, in an attempt to extract monetary gain from such transaction, and\/or 2. use the domain at a later time, in order to purposefully create confusion with the offerings of the Siemens Group among the concerned consumers, and extract gain from fraudulent activity; that Respondent&rsquo;s bad faith was further indicated by the scarcity of information on it on the WhoIs database. As all the Respondent&rsquo;s details are privacy protected, without any real organization or natural person&rsquo;s name, email, physical address, or phone number being available, making its identification practically impossible, citing <em>Siemens AG v. Hello Greatness<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2020-1641.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": [
        "María Alejandra López García"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, Siemens Trademark GmbH &amp; Co. KG, is a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks at issue within Siemens Group, founded more than 175 years ago, is one of the world&rsquo;s largest corporations, providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries and it is active among many other multiple fields, in the field of Medicine, Automation and Control, Power, Transportation, Logistics, Information and Communications.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant owns the following Trademarks:<\/p>\n<p>- International Registration No. 1357232, SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS AND DESIGN, in ICs 5, 9, 10, 35, 37, 42 and 44, registered on October 25, 2016 and in force until October 25, 2026, designating various territories, including China;<\/p>\n<p>- International registration No. 637074, SIEMENS, in ICs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42, registered on March 31, 1995 and in force until March 31, 2025, covering more than 60 countries worldwide, including China.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name &lt;<strong>siemens-healtineers.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on <strong>August 22<\/strong>,<strong> 2022, <\/strong>and resolves to a website with pay-per-click (&ldquo;PPC&rdquo;) links, directing to websites operated by potential competitors of the Complainant.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "siemens-healtineers.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}