{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105848", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-11 10:22:13", "domain_names": [ "pentaireurope.blog" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pentair Flow Services AG " ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Victor Panasyuk " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant's Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is part of the Pentair group of companies, founded in 1966, whose business area is water treatment and sustainable applications. The brand PENTAIR was coined by the five company founders in the suburban St Paul, Minnesota, USA, and is composed of the Greek word 'penta', representing the five founders, and 'air' which is a reference to the products they planned to produce. The business diversified across the years before becoming a leader in water related products.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is present in 26 countries and employs more than 11,000 personnel worldwide. In 2022, the Complainant generated a net sales of c. USD 4.1bn.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade marks mentioned in the above section 'Identification of Rights', and other trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant owns numerous domain names which contain the term 'pentair' and were registered long before the disputed domain name,  most notably <pentair.com>, which was registered in 1996 and resolves to the Complainant's official website.  <\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <pentaireurope.blog> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I<\/strong>. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark PENTAIR. The addition of the geographical term 'europe' to the trade mark PENTAIR is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.<\/p>\n

Relying on previous WIPO UDRP decisions and the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0'), paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8, the Complainant contends that UDRP panels have decided previously that insofar as the relevant trade mark is incorporated into the domain name, the addition of other terms to the domain name string would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the UDRP Policy. The Complainant also takes stock of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, paragraph 1.11, to support its claim that the generic Top Level Domain ('the gTLD') suffix (in this case, <.blog>) is typically disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trade marks.<\/p>\n

II<\/strong>. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark PENTAIR. Moreover, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent's website appears to be used to defraud Internet users into providing their confidential personal information to the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent's website contains the Complainant's both logo and trade mark PENTAIR and, despite the appearance of a blog\/news type, it does not host actual text within. The Complainant therefore claims that this demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods nor a legitimate interest of the Respondent.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n

 III<\/strong>. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant advances the following grounds in support of a finding of registration in bad faith:<\/p>\n

• The trade mark PENTAIR long predates the registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name nor does the Complainant have any relationship with the Respondent;<\/p>\n

• The Complainant registered the trade mark PENTAIR in numerous countries worldwide and the trade mark PENTAIR has been used by the Complainant's group for several decades; and<\/p>\n

• The trade mark PENTAIR is distinctive and widely known in its business sector.<\/p>\n

Use<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant advances the following grounds in support of a finding of use in bad faith:<\/p>\n

• The Respondent's website is a blog\/news type on which the the trade mark PENTAIR is prominently displayed;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent's website mimics many features of the Complainant's own official European blog at www.pentair.eu\/blog<\/a>;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letter;<\/p>\n

• The Respondent's website does not contain text within the blog posts; and<\/p>\n

• The Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

On these bases, the Complainant  concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits.  <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

• United States trade mark registration no. 2573714, registered on 28 May 2002, for the word mark PENTAIR, in class 7 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• Chinese trade mark registration no. 3504734, registered on 28 April 2006, for the figurative mark PENTAIR, in class 21 of the Nice Classification; and<\/span><\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 011008414, registered on 23 January 2013, for the figurative mark PENTAIR, in classes 6, 7, 9, 11 and 42 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter, collectively or individually 'the Complainant’s trade mark' or 'the trade mark PENTAIR' interchangeably).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 13 June 2023 and, at the time of writing this decision, it resolves to an active website, the particulars of which are discussed further below ('the Respondent's website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "pentaireurope.blog": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }