Versuni Holding B.V. and Ucello Limited (henceforth collectively: “Complainant”), are the owners of the “Versuni” trademarks, which refer to the new corporate name of the well-known producer of consumer goods, Philips Domestic Appliances (https:\/\/www.versuni.com\/newsroom\/philips-domestic-appliances-becomes-versuni ). Complainant, previously “Philips Domestic Appliances”, is headquartered in the Netherlands and active in the field of global innovation, manufacturing, and commercial footprint in more than 100 countries. Complainant’s portfolio spans kitchen appliances and other household products, climate care, garment, and floor care. The company has launched a wealth of successful household products that meet the changing needs of the consumer and deliver best-in-class innovation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant underlines that it is the owner of the “Versuni” trademark since May 3, 2022, and that the nine disputed domain names have been registered several months later, on September 20, 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Initially, two co-Complainants filed the Complaint against Lei SHI for some disputed domain names (namely <verauni.com> ; <verduni.com>; <versni.com>; <versui.com>; <versuin.com>; <versunu.com>; <vrsuni.com> and <wwwversuni.com>) and against Munish ARORA (disputed domain names <versunia.com>; <versuni.online>; <versuni.site>; <versuni.xyz>) for applying an identical pattern of conduct. The Registrars confirmed the domain name holders´ identification. The co-Complainants requested a consolidation of the complaint.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
An issue arose concerning the language of the proceedings as some disputed domain names were governed by a registration agreement in Chinese language. The co-Complaints argued that despite the language of the agreement, English language should be the one of proceedings, having regard to all circumstances, and to help ensure fairness, and maintain an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain disputes.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants observe that the disputed domain names incorporate the “Versuni” trademark in its entirety or consist of misspelling of their trademarks. The co-Complainants note that previous panels have held domain names to be confusingly similar if the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants argue that it is implausible to believe that the Respondents did not have any actual knowledge of the co-Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants consider that the Respondents have attempted to cause confusion in internet users by registering several domain names which bear the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety or misspelled ones.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants add that the Respondents uses a privacy protection service on all the disputed domain names to hide its identity and considers that this may constitute evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants have requested that the proceedings concerning all disputed domain names are consolidated into single proceedings in accordance with paragraph 4(f) of the UDRP and paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the UDRP Rules. The co-Complainants assert that all disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert. In support of this assertion, the co-Complainants contend the following:<\/p>\n
Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides as follows:<\/p>\n
“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.”<\/p>\n
The Panel concurs with past UDRP decisions that multiple domain names may be consolidated into a single case where they are all subject to common control and, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, where consolidation would be procedurally efficient, fair and equitable to all parties, please see for example HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co v. Charles Carranza and William Tillery, Case No. 101901 (CAC, April 5, 2018) or PRADA S.A. v. xie xiaomei \/ zhang yuanyuan \/ zhou honghai \/ zhouhonghai \/ Zhou Hong Hai \/ Honghai Zhou \/ deng wen \/ xie peiyuan \/ Jianghong Wang \/ xie caida \/ liu min \/ du linmei, Case No. D2016-0799 (WIPO, June 22, 2016).<\/p>\n
The Panel also concurs with the UDRP decision in CAC Case 101969 <UNDERARMOUROUTLETSTOREONSALE.COM> that although there may be no single factor which proves that all disputed domain names are under common ownership or control, it is sufficient when all relevant factors taken together lead to the reasonable conclusion that the disputed domain names are, in fact, commonly controlled and should be consolidated.<\/p>\n
This is exactly the situation in the case at hand and therefore this Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain names are very likely under common ownership or control. Also, consolidation in this case is procedurally efficient, fair, and equitable to all parties and therefore is granted by the Panel.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Panel having the possibility to conduct summary searches noticed that an identical pattern of conduct involving the Respondent Lei SHI came out in some UDRP matters (re. Benefit focus.com, Inc. v. Shilei, 石磊 (Lei Shi), and Huade Wang Case No. D2022-4054 or Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Huade Wang, shilei, and 石磊 (Lei Shi) Case No. D2023-1344 ).<\/p>\n
The mere fact that Respondent Munish ARORA mentioned in a response to the Complaint that<\/p>\n
“I have no association with the other respondent, Lei Shi. […] The coincidence of buying a domain name around the same time is purely incidental”<\/p>\n
may not be convincing insofar as (i) the typology of domain names is identical or just misspelling, and (ii) not only reserved on the same day but also within the same timeframe (minutes) could not be considered as “incidental”.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons put forward by the co-Complainants, the Panel concludes that there are sufficient grounds to support the conclusion that the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. The Panel notes, in addition to the factors relied upon by the co-Complainant, each of the disputed domain names have been used in the same manner in respect of the parking pages.<\/p>\n
Save where the context suggests otherwise, the Respondents will accordingly be referred to as the “Respondent” hereinafter.<\/p>\n
The Panel decided that in light of the (same) Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and Respondent’s decision to register domain names that misappropriates the [co-Complainants´] trademark, it would unduly burden the co-Complainants to have to arrange and pay for translation (re. In WIPO Decision D2023-1344 (Meta Platforms Inc. \/ Lei Shi). Furthermore, there is evidence showing that Respondent can understand the language of the complaint because some of the registration agreements in this dispute are in English language, and Mr. Munish ARORA replied in English. Also as mentioned in the Chinese registrar verification data, is using an e-mail address that exclusively consists of English words.<\/p>\n
The Co-Complainants request the transfer of all disputed domain names.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The co-Complainants observe that the disputed domain names incorporate the “Versuni” trademark in its entirety or consist of misspelling of their trademarks. The co-Complainants note that previous panels have held domain names to be confusingly similar if the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants furthermore emphasize that the applicable TLD is a standard requirement of registration and as such should be disregarded under the first UDRP element.<\/p>\n
As regards the disputed domain names:<\/p>\n
It is a clear cut case of identical reproduction of the Trademarks.<\/p>\n
It is a clear cut case of the so-called dot-squatting case where we are in a situation of omitting to type a full stop or point between ‘www’ and the <trademark>. See for example WIPO case D2004-1019 <wwwprada.com> [Prada S.A. v. Domains For Life], <wwwreuters.com> [Reuters Limited v Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441], <wwwpfizer.com> [Pfizer, Inc. v. Seocho and Vladimir Snezko, WIPO Case No. D2001-1199],<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants argued that the Respondents registered domain names that clearly consist of misspellings which are confusingly similar to the registered Trademarks. These are textbook examples of the practice known as “typosquatting”, which e.g. relies on mistakes such as typos made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. According to section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name that consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purpose of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant trademark.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants note that, according to the available Whois information, all disputed domain names have been registered several months after the registration and use of the Complainant's trademark and on the same day.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants consider that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the co-Complainant’s trademark in a confusingly similar manner within the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants state that it has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondents and has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondents to use the “Versuni” trademark in the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants point out that it has exclusive trademark rights which predate the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants submit that the Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate offering of goods or services under the \"Versuni\" trademark.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants consider that in the absence of a license or permission from the Complainant concerning the use of its trademark, no bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names can reasonably be claimed.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants argue that no credible evidence that the Respondents is commonly known by the domain name is shown, nor the Respondents hold any trademark or service mark right on the \"Versuni\" trademark.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants note that a Respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered fair if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants underline that all the disputed domain names resolve to a nearly identical kind of parked page where “pay per click” links are visible.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants argue that the Respondent's intention is that consumers who are looking for the Complainant's website will find one of the disputed domain names and the corresponding websites and subsequently generate revenue for the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants consider that the fact of registering many variations containing the \"Versuni\" trademark in combination with other elements amounts to a ‘pattern of conduct’, supporting a finding of abusive registration.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants argue that it is implausible to believe that the Respondents did not have any actual knowledge of the co-Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants consider that the Respondents have attempted to cause confusion in internet users by registering several domain names which bear the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety or misspelled ones.<\/p>\n
The co-Complainants add that the Respondent uses a privacy protection service on all the disputed domain names to hide its identity and considers that this may constitute evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT 1 - LEI SHI: <\/span><\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED<\/p>\n RESPONDENT 2- MUNISH ARORA:<\/span><\/p>\n (re strictly identical domain names <versuni.xyz>, <versuni.online>, <versuni.shop> and misspelled one <versunia.com>) indicates that it had no knowledge of Versuni or its connection to the previous Philips brand. Respondent´s choice of the name was driven by the interpretation of \"Vers\" in French, meaning \"towards,\" and \"uni\" as the short form \"universe,\" (Respondent states: “I have named it because I am living in France”) representing a personal concept unrelated to Complainant´s company. That Respondent´s plan was to create a merchandise store and blog, focusing on T-shirt designs and has no association with the other respondent, Lei Shi. The Respondent 2 mentions that due to unforeseen financial difficulties, a suspension of the school email and contact number impeded its ability to access and manage his GoDaddy account for domain settings. Finally, the Respondent specifies he did not authorize GoDaddy to park the websites or display advertisements. In a second reply re-instating what has been developed in the first place, the Respondent 2 indicates a financial constraint with a shortfall of €9563 for school fees but by resolving this financial issue will unblock the account. Yet the Respondent 2 explained that it cannot commit to transferring the domain name at this time, and signing any document may pose difficulties for the Respondent.<\/p>",
"rights": " The co-Complainants have, 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 co-Complainants have, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondents 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 co-Complainants have, 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>\n The issues of Respondent´s consolidation and language of the proceedings are summarised in the Factual background part of the decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"David-Irving Tayer"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Versuni Holding B.V. and Ucello Limited (henceforth collectively: “Complainant”), are the owners of the “Versuni” trademarks<\/span><\/p>\n\n