https:\/\/www.schindler.com<\/a> and its official accounts on major social networks such as “LinkedIn”, “Twitter”, “Instagram” and “YouTube”.<\/p>\nThe disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2023 and the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name “has been pointed to a website where products in competition with the Complainant’s products are promoted”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent prior to initiating this proceeding but received no response.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. The Complainant claims that it is a well-established principle that domain names that wholly incorporate trademarks, in particular ones as famous as “SCHINDLER”, are found to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy, despite the fact that they may also contain descriptive, generic or geographical terms.<\/p>\n
The addition of “elevator” is insufficient to negate confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The addition of the gTLD <.online> does not affect confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not a licensee or authorized dealer of the Complainant nor has been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is not aware of the existence of any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence of bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the Policy can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n
\n- Its mark enjoys worldwide reputation in the sector of escalators, moving walkways and elevators and the disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2023, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s mark.<\/li>\n
- By choosing the generic word “elevator”, it is clear that the Respondent was well aware of the trademark “SCHINDLER” and he has registered the disputed domain name with the intention to refer to the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/li>\n
- The registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant’s trademark is evidence of bad faith.<\/li>\n
- The disputed domain name resolves to Registrar’s parking page. The Complainant relies on the passive holding doctrine and the “Telstra” decision (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows<\/em><\/strong>”<\/em>).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The Complainant alleges that its trademark has a high degree of distinctiveness, the Respondent has not replied to its cease-and-desist letter and, following the receipt of this letter, the Respondent has not changed the redirection from the parking page, the Respondent has concealed his identity and there is not any chance of good faith use by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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 name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": "
The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/span><\/p>\nNO 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>\n
Language of the administrative proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Registrar in its communication to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) stated that the language of the registration agreement is Russian.<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests that English shall be the language of this proceeding based on the following:<\/p>\n
\n- the disputed domain name contains Latin characters;<\/li>\n
- the disputed domain name includes the generic English word “elevator”;<\/li>\n
- the Respondent’s e-mail contains the generic English word “lift”, as a synonym of “elevator”;<\/li>\n
- the translation of the Complaint into Chinese (sic) would also cause additional expense and delay, making unfair to proceed in Russian.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Based on the above the Complainant alleges that the Respondent understands English and the corresponding website is dedicated to English speaking internet users.<\/p>\n
Under par. 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n
As noted in “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition” (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement and such scenarios include inter alia:<\/p>\n
- the language\/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark;<\/p>\n
- any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name, potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint; and<\/p>\n
- other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement (see sec. 4.5.1).
<\/p>\n
The Panel needs to consider the interests of both parties to the proceeding and provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case and at the same time to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n
The Panel is not entirely persuaded by Complainant’s reasoning for a language change provided above. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website and therefore one cannot conclude that the “corresponding website is dedicated to English speaking internet users”.<\/p>\n
However, the Panel decides to proceed in English based on the following:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
The Complainant provided proof of sending a cease-and-desist letter to the e-mail address of the Respondent on November 27, 2023. This e-mail address was later confirmed by the registrar in its verification. The letter was in English, however the disputed domain name was mentioned a few times along with Complainant’s trademarks, including in the subject line and it was clear that the content of the letter relates to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s trademark along with the English word “elevator” descriptive of Complainant’s activities.
<\/li>\n - The CAC sent a notification to the Respondent of commencement of the administrative proceeding in Russian. The Respondent did not respond.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Based on the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent was notified, including by the CAC notice in the Russian language, and should have been aware of the situation and this proceeding.<\/p>\n
The Panel knows both Russian and English and had the Respondent submitted any response in Russian, the Panel would have taken it into consideration.<\/p>\n
However, the Respondent chose not to respond. In particular, the Respondent did not challenge choice of the English language as the language of this proceeding and never questioned the language issue in this dispute in any way.<\/p>\n
Taking into account that the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent prior to filing this complaint, that the CAC sent a notification to the Respondent in Russian, that the disputed domain name is in the Latin script fully incorporating the Complainant’s mark plus the English word descriptive of Complainant’s goods and services, and the Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel finds that it would be unfair to the Complainant to order it to translate the complaint into Russian.<\/p>\n
The Panel is also mindful of the obligation to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n
Based on the above the Panel agrees with the Complainant and decides to proceed in English.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Igor Motsnyi"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
In this proceeding the Complainant relies on various trademarks with the “SCHINDLER” word element, including the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n
\n- \n
International trademark registration under the Madrid system “SCHINDLER” (word) No. 1265628, registration date is May 1, 2015, protected inter alia in Albania, Algeria, Australia, EU, China, India, Japan, Russia and Turkey;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- International trademark registration under the Madrid system “SCHINDLER” (word and device) No. 1633618, registration date is August 10, 2021, protected inter alia <\/em>in Australia, Brazil, China, EU, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine; and
<\/li>\n- International trademark registration under the Madrid system “SCHINDLER” (word and device) No. 883565, registration date is January 13, 2006, protected inter alia <\/em>in Australia, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Singapore, Ukraine and USA.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
"decision_domains": {
"schindler-elevator.online": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}