The Complainant is a European electric utility company based in Essen, Germany. Its E.ON Group of companies is one of the world's largest investor-owned electric utility service providers, and one of Europe's largest operators of energy networks and energy infrastructure with approximately 50 million customers in more than 30 countries. The Complainant’s company under the “E.ON” brand was created in 2000 through the merger of two existing German utility companies, VEBA and VIAG.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <eononlineeonoffice.com> was registered on March 14, 2023 using a Privacy Service and lands to a parking page with links comparing electricity and gas tariffs i.e. in the Complainant's field of business.<\/p>\n
The Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous business or other relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the E.ON trademark in any way at all. This includes use in the disputed domain name and <\/span>on the website.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any other legitimate interest in that name. A Google search for “eon online” pointed straight to the Complainant and its business activities.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the Respondent should have performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name. It would have been obvious that the Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks and domains in many countries around the world.<\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent did not file any response to the Complaint.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>",
"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": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <eononlineeonoffice.com> <\/span>is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark “E.ON”. The addition of the generic terms \"online\" and \"office\" does not alter the overall impression of the domain as being closely linked to the Complainant’s company name and trademark E.ON. The omitted dot between the trademark elements “E” and “ON” is regarded as irrelevant because this separating dot is usually not pronounced and is not dominant or distinctive in the Complainant’s trademark “E.ON”. Moreover, the Complainant itself also does not use this separating dot, including the technical reason for that, in some of its own domain names such as <eon.com>. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant and the Respondent never had any business or other relationships, and the Complainant has never granted the Respondent any rights to use the “E.ON” trademark (or the disputed domain name) in any way. The Complainant has not found any indications that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any other legitimate interest in that name.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that a Google search performed by the Complainant for “eon online” pointed straight to the Complainant and its business activities. The Complainant argues that the Respondent should have performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name, as it would then have been obvious that the Complainant is the owner of numerous associated trademarks and domains in many countries around the world. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolved in a parking page with pay-per-click links comparing electricity and gas tariffs i.e. in the Complainant's field of business.<\/p>\n The Complainant finally argues that the Respondent has used an identity protection service to conceal its identity when registering the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/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": " 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": [
"David-Irving Tayer"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-19 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns the following trademarks:<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns, among other domain names, the domain name <eon.com> which the Complainant uses for its main corporate website.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on March 14, 2023, so that the Complainant’s trademark registrations clearly predate the disputed domain names registration date.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"eononlineeonoffice.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n