The Complainant is Pentair Flow Services AG, part of the Pentair Group of companies (“Pentair Group”). It was founded in 1966, by five men intent on manufacturing high-altitude balloons in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota. The name PENTAIR is fanciful and distinctive and was coined by the company founders from the Greek “penta” for the five founders and “air” referring to product. The business grew and diversified ultimately becoming the leader in water-related products and services the Pentair Group is today.<\/p>\n
The Pentair Group is a leader in the water industry, with companies around the world, including Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration Solutions LLC, Pentair Filtration, Inc, Pentair Inc, and the Complainant, among others. The official website of Pentair’s Group is found at www.pentair.com. From approximately 135 locations in 26 countries, the Pentair Group has over 11,000 employees. The Pentair Group’s 2022 net sales were approximately $4.1 billion.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant says five disputed domain names directly and entirely incorporate Complainant’s registered trademark PENTAIR along with typographical variants of the words “benefits” and “center”. It says these minor misspellings are “typosquatting” and the addition of dictionary or descriptive term to a complainant’s mark are not material to a finding of confusing similarity in this respect (see sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
<\/p>\n
It also says that the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. At the time of the Complaint, they resolve to pay-per-click websites showing generic links. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, “the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users’’. The use of typo variants of the terms “benefit” and “center” was calculated by Respondent to take advantage of Pentair employees and prospective employees and other interested stakeholders who would be likely to undertake internet searches based on variants of the term “Pentair Benefits Center” The Complainant has not found that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it has any interest in them. According to the Registrar Verification, the Respondent is an individual located in China with the name \"Lei Shi\". The Complainant has not found any evidence that Respondent has made any known legitimate, non-commercial use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant is also concerned that there may be a more malicious intent as discussed below under the bad faith third element due to the potential to generate phishing activity and attacks. There is no evidence that Respondent has a history of using or is currently preparing to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s PENTAIR mark is distinctive and widely known in its sector.<\/p>\n
For example: Pentair was named as one of America’s best employers for women in 2022 by Forbes and was awarded the 2022 ENERGY STAR®<\/sup> Partner of the Year – Sustained Excellence Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy and in an industry survey, Pentair was named the Brand Most Used in a vote of industry professionals across the U.S. Further, as mentioned above, when entering the terms “PENTAIR” and ‘’BENEFITS’’ and “CENTER” in the Google search engine, the returned results point to Pentair’s Group and its business activity. That points to an inference of knowledge and therefore of bad faith targeting.<\/p>\n All five of the disputed domain names have active MX records. The presence of MX records means that emails could be sent from the variant email addresses which would be likely to make a recipient believe that it was a legitimate communication from Complainant, or at least somehow connected to or endorsed by Complainant. This is highly concerning to the Complainant, as there can be no good reason for a party to be able to impersonate the Complainant. Finally, the Respondent appears to have been involved as an unsuccessful respondent in at least 40 other UDRP proceedings, concerning well-known trademarks including Facebook, Walmart, Google and others. This is a pattern under the Policy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT: <\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/strong><\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Complainant submits the following common factors are applicable to all five of the disputed domain names and these cases should therefore be consolidated:<\/p>\n The Complainant’s consolidation requests are not opposed, and the criteria are satisfied, and this is granted. <\/p>\n The request as to the language of the proceeding is also granted. The Registration agreement is in Chinese, but the Respondent remained inactive in these proceedings and did not contest Complainant´s request to hold the proceeding in English language.<\/p>\n 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": [
"Victoria McEvedy"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns the registered trademark PENTAIR in numerous territories, including in China where the Respondent is located, for example:<\/p>\n 1.Chinese national mark, Pentair logo, registered no. 11517821 on 20 September 2012;<\/p>\n 2. Chinese national mark, Pentair logo, registered no. 3504734 on 28 March 2003;<\/p>\n 3. US national mark, Pentair, registered no. 2573714 on 28 May 2002;<\/p>\n 4. US national mark, Pentair logo, registered no. 50003584 on 1 July 2012;<\/p>\n 5. US national mark, Pentair word, registered as no. 4348967 on 20 April 2012;<\/p>\n 6. EUTM, Pentair logo, registered no. 011008414 on 2 July 2012.<\/p>\n Pentair Inc, an affiliated company of Complainant, owns the domain names www.pentair.com<\/a>, registered in 1996, www.pentair.net<\/a>, registered in 2003, www.pentair.org, registered in 2010, www.pentairbenefits.com<\/a>, registered in 2014, and www.pentairbenefitscenter.com<\/a>, registered in 2023.<\/p>\n The Complainant relies on its use in trade and says it is a well-known mark, due to the extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide.<\/p>\n The trademark PENTAIR has been subject of past disputes under the UDRP Policy:<\/p>\n 1.CAC No. 105279<\/a>, <\/u> Pentair Flow Services AG v. li jiang concerning the domain names wwwpentairbenefits.com etc;<\/p>\n\n