The first Complainant, Prexiso Ag, was established in 2009 and is a Swiss company who specializes in offering simple and affordable measurement tools for everyone. The second Complainant, HangZhou Great Star Industrial Co., Ltd., was established in 1993 and is focussed on the tools and storage industry. Its main products include hand tools, storage, power tools, laser measurement devices, power stations, which are mainly used in the fields of home maintenance, construction, vehicle maintenance, map measuring and surveying, and home energy management. The registered PREXISO trademark is used for line of professional laser measurement\/mapping tools including laser rangefinders and laser levels. On August 2, 2018, the second Complainant acquired 100% of the equity of the first Complainant thus forming a parent-subsidiary relationship. The disputed domain name was registered on October 30, 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.<\/span><\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PREXISO trademark by copying the trademark and adding only the “.shop” TLD.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and it resolves the domain name to a website that displays photos of the Complainants’ PREXISO products and claims to offer such goods for sale while also offering for sale products under the LEICA trademark which are directly competitive to those offered by the Complainants.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and it is used in bad faith where the Respondent had actual prior knowledge of the Complainants’ PREXISO trademark and hosts a website offering products that compete with the Complainants.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No administratively compliant response has been filed although the Respondent submitted an email stating, in full, “The domain was released last week”.<\/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 <\/p>\n Preliminary Issue – Multiple Complainants<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the instant proceedings, there are two named Complainants. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Czech Arbitration Court’s Supplemental Rule Article 3. Rule 3(a) states that “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint”. The Supplemental Rule Article 3 states that “The Class Complaint is based on legal arguments applicable equally, or substantially in the same manner, to all the disputed domain names”.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The two named Complainants in this matter are Prexiso AG and HangZhou Great Star Industrial Co., Ltd. and the Complaint states that HangZhou Great Star Industrial Co. “acquired 100% equity of Prexiso AG through an agreement transfer”.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Previous panels have allowed multiple parties to proceed as one where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Athleta (ITM) Inc., Banana Republic (ITM) Inc., and Gap (ITM) Inc. v. Web Commerce Communications Limited, UDRP-105823 (CAC November 7, 2023) (the three named “Complainants are subsidiaries of The Gap, Inc” and “[t]herefore, the Panel finds that consolidation would be fair and equitable”). See also Procter & Gamble Business Services Canada Company, The Gil-lette Company LLC, Braun GmbH and The Procter & Gamble company v. Whois privacy protection service, Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua \/ Ar-tem Shostak, Private person 66478, Whois privacy protection service, In-ternet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua \/ Artem Shostak, Private person 53397, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LTD \/ Коваленко Валерий\/Konovalenko Valeriy, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LLC \/ Коваленко Валерий\/Konovalenko Valeriy, D2017-1493 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2017) (consolidation of multiple complainants found to be equitable and procedurally efficient where “[t]he Complainant Procter & Gamble is a parent company of the First Three Complainants. Therefore, the evidence shows that the Complainants have a common grievance against the Re-spondents by virtue of having common legal interest.”).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the present case, the Complaint has noted the relationship between the two named Complainants as a parent and a subsidiary company. The Respondent has provided no substantive response in this case and so it has not contested this relationship. Under the circumstances the Panel finds that there is a link between the two named Complainants and that they have a specific common grievance against the Respondent who has engaged in a common action that has affected the Complainants in a similar fashion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For the sake of simplicity, Prexiso AG and HangZhou Great Star Industrial Co., Ltd. will hereafter be referred to in this decision as “the Complainant” unless otherwise noted.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Steven Levy"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-03 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n MADRID Trademark No. 946914 for PREXISO, registered on 30 July 2007, designating goods and services in the International Class 9, 35;<\/p>\n U.S. Trademark No. 4220009 for PREXISO, registered on 9 October 2012, designating goods and services in international classes 9; and<\/p>\n Chinese Trademark No. 27247162 for PREXISO, registered on 7 January 2019, designating goods and services in international classes 9.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"prexiso.shop": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}