{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106158", "time_of_filling": "2024-01-23 15:36:17", "domain_names": [ "siemensios.com", " siemensapp.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG." ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "anilx cols" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG, is a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks at issue within Siemens Group. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, which is the ultimate mother company of the Siemens Group. The turnover of the Siemens Group in 2023 was 77 billion EUR, and the group employs more than 320.000 people worldwide. Siemens Group is headquartered in Berlin and Munich. It is one of the world’s largest corporations, providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries. Founded more than 175 years ago, the company is active (among others) in the fields of Automation and Control, Power, Transportation, Logistics, Information and Communications, Medical Technology, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

The trademark “SIEMENS” of the Complainant is used in various countries in relation to technological, industrial and other solutions, as to be seen from its global website accessible, under https:\/\/new.siemens.com\/global\/en.html (copy of the webpage about the Complainant).<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain names <siemensapp.com> and <siemensios.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain names”) were registered on 29 July 2023 according to the WHOIS information. According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘anilx cols’. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Aland Islands.<\/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

A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the mark “SIEMENS” is a mark with a global reputation. By long and extensive use, this mark belongs to the best-known trademarks in the world today. The “SIEMENS” mark is well recognized as a symbol of the highest quality of the concerned goods and services. By virtue of the long use and the renown of the Complainant’s mark “SIEMENS” this is exclusively associated with the Siemens Group. The reputation associated with the Complainant’s mark is excellent, stemming from the impeccable quality of Siemens Group’s goods and services.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are highly similar to the Complainant’s mark “SIEMENS” as the latter is integrally reproduced within all of them.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that when it comes to the first of the disputed domain names, the additional “APP” verbal element, a common abbreviation for “application”, is descriptive of the promised offering of the respective website, being a supposed “Siemens application”. As for the second one, the additional “IOS” verbal element will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning either “iPhone Operating System” or as a meaningless ending. As both disputed domain names integrally reproduce the Complainant’s mark, which is a highly distinctive term, placed at the beginning of each domain, it follows that there is a high similarity between these domains and the earlier mark “SIEMENS”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (i.e., “.com”) after a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant assumes that due to the high reputation of the trademark “SIEMENS”, the public will automatically recognize the mark “SIEMENS” and will associate the disputed domain names with the Complainant. The Internet users will believe that these domain names belong to the Complainant and will form the false impression the websites under the disputed domain names are official Internet addresses belonging to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

B. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. <\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that it is impossible to know the owner of any of the disputed domain names, as the holders’ details are privacy-protected (WHOIS information). The Complainant has strong indications that all the disputed domain names are held and controlled by the same entity. As can be seen on the WHOIS database, both disputed domain names were registered on the same date and with the same Registrar. Further, their name servers are the same. For the above reasons, the Complainant believes there is a very high probability that the same entity, i.e., the Respondent, is the owner of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is not and has never been one of the Complainant’s representatives, employees or one of its licensees nor is otherwise authorized to use the trademark “SIEMENS”. The Complainant does not have any connection with the Respondent.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain names seem to have been deactivated and do not show any content. However, in the recent past, both disputed domain names were leading to rogue websites. Namely, the first disputed domain name was used to fraudulently collect money from external users (Screenshot of website under siemensapp.com). As for the second disputed domain name, it used to show content aiming to mislead individuals with promises of daily earnings through work-from-home opportunities (Screenshot of website under siemensios.com).<\/p>\n

The Complainant assumes that it is obvious that the Respondent has not used and is not currently using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It has not been commonly known with the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

In view of the long and extensive use of the mark “SIEMENS” throughout the world, decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain names from the Respondent, it is obvious that the Respondent is well aware of the existence of this mark, whose status and reputation has been assessed in various UDRP decisions in the past.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that under these circumstances, the nature of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation between the Respondent and the Siemens Group, which is obviously the Respondent’s actual intention in registering these domain names.<\/p>\n

C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, as the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s earlier rights on the trademark “SIEMENS”. In registering the disputed domain names, which identically contain the famous trademark “SIEMENS”, the Respondent saw an opportunity to extract financial gain from the strong global reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that, as for the use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the previously mentioned past content of the respective websites is self-explanatory. Both websites – up until very recently – displayed the “SIEMENS” mark and logo. The Respondent took active steps to fraudulently convince the consumers that these websites stem from the Siemens Group, and persuade them to “investing”, while in reality conferring the Respondent undue monetary gain. While it seems that the content of these websites has been currently removed, even the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith.<\/p>\n

Indicatively, a strong factor that can lead to this conclusion is the unequivocal reputation of the Complainant, in a way of making it impossible to assume that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s business and that it chose the element “SIEMENS” for its disputed domain names as a mere coincidence.<\/p>\n

Based on all of the above, the Complainant concludes that it is more than obvious that the Respondent is using the domain names to purposefully create confusion with the offerings of the Siemens Group among the concerned consumers and is infringing the Complainant’s marks and was engaging in unfair competition practices through the websites’ content as well.<\/p>\n

As the Siemens Group already owns and uses for business purposes various domain names consisting of the sign “SIEMENS”, such as <siemens.com>, <siemens.eu>, <siemens.de>, the Respondent knows that registering the disputed domain names creates an extremely high risk of confusion with the Siemens Group.<\/p>\n

The bad faith of the Respondent is lastly indicated by the use of a privacy protection service to hide its details from the public WHOIS database.<\/p>\n

The Complainant assumes that the overall evidence boldly confirms that the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain names was deliberate for its high similarity to the Complainant’s reputed mark and with the clear intention to extract undue monetary gain. Therefore, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n