The Complainant, Pentair Flow Services AG, is a business within the Pentair Group of companies (“Pentair Group”). Founded in 1966, the Pentair Group is a leader in the water industry, composed of companies around the world, including Pentair Plc, Pentair Filtration Solutions LLC, Pentair Filtration, Inc, Pentair Inc, and the Complainant, among others. From approximately 135 locations in 26 countries, the Pentair Group's more than 11,000 employees are united in the unwavering belief that water's future depends on Pentair's Group. Pentair Group’s 2022 net sales were approximately $4.1 billion. The mark PENTAIR is fanciful and distinctive and was coined by the company founders. In 1966, five men intent on manufacturing high-altitude balloons founded a company in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota, that they called Pentair, the Greek “penta” for the five founders and “air” for the products they planned to produce. The original business diversified quickly, with ventures in many varied industries, before ultimately becoming the leader in water-related products and services the Pentair Group is today.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2023.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
(i) The Complainant has rights in the PENTAIR mark as identified in section “Identification of rights” above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's PENTAIR mark because it incorporates the Complainant’s mark PENTAIR merely adding a geographic term “Dubai” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).<\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: the Respondent does not have any relationships with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent with any rights to use the PENTAIR trademark in any forms, including the disputed domain name; and there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is not directed to an active website. The redirected webpage only displays the following sentence: 403 FORBIDDEN.<\/p>\n (iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the PENTAIR mark; the mere registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark can by itself create a presumption of bad faith; and the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active page, and such a passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name given several factual considerations. The Complainant’s trademark registrations long predate the disputed domain name registration because the Complainants’ PENTAIR trademark was filed at least as early as 2002, whereas the disputed domain name was registered in 2023.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\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": " Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Japanese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Japanese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See <\/em>Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, 3rd<\/sup> Edition; see <\/em>also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). The Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s mark \"PENTAIR,\" with the additional geographic term \"Dubai\". Both words are in English and utilize the Roman script, which is also employed in the English language; (ii) the use of English script and a relevant geographic term strongly suggests the Respondent’s knowledge of English; (iii) the domain name was registered using the most common gTLD worldwide, i.e., .com, which is relevant because if the Respondent was aiming for the Japanese language market, the most relevant TLD would be the ccTLD applicable for Japan, i.e., .jp; (iv) the Respondent has deliberately chosen to use English words and script and the generally applicable gTLD, with both factors indicating the Respondent has command of the English language; (v) it would be unfair and prejudicial to proceed in the Japanese language because to do so would result in considerable delays to the proceedings and unnecessary expenses for the Complainant to prepare translations of the Complaint and all associated annexes; and (vi) the business language of the Complainant and its authorized Representative is English, and it would be burdensome and prejudicial for both to consider this proceeding in Japanese. <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of the Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.<\/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": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of PENTAIR and PENTAIR & logo marks registered in numerous territories, including Japan, where the Respondent is located:<\/p>\n - JPO (Japan Patent Office) trademark Reg. No. 6238656 registered on March 24, 2020;<\/p>\n - USPTO trademark Reg. No. 2573714 registered on May 28, 2002; and<\/p>\n - EUIPO trademark Reg. No. 011008414 for PENTAIR (& logo) mark registered on January 23, 2013.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"pentairdubai.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}