{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107275", "time_of_filling": "2025-01-29 10:22:17", "domain_names": [ "wurthmodyf-de.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Würth International AG", "Würth Modyf GmbH & Co. KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Roman Zebhauser (HK2 Rechtsanwälte)", "respondent": [ "Mandy Mohr" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainants are both part of the globally operating Würth Group. Many Würth-affiliated companies bear the name of their founder, Adolf Würth, who established the Group in 1945 with the initial purpose of selling screws. <\/span>Over time, Würth Group has grown into a global wholesaler specializing in fasteners, screws and screw accessories, dowels, chemicals, electronic and electromechanical components, furniture and construction fittings, tools, machines, installation materials, automotive hardware, inventory management, and storage and retrieval systems.<\/span><\/p>\n

Würth Group is the world market leader in its core business, namely the trade of assembly and fastening materials. It comprises over 400 companies in more than 80 countries and employs more than 85,000 people worldwide. In the business year 2023, Würth Group recorded a total revenue of EUR 20.4 billion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond its commercial activities, Würth Group is extensively engaged in cultural and sports promotion. Among other initiatives, Würth is an official partner of the German Football Association (DFB) and collaborates with various Bundesliga football clubs. Additionally, Würth Group has been an active sponsor in the motorsports industry for over 40 years.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on October 21, 2024. At the time of filing this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that targeted Complainants’ trademarks and business by displaying an online shop, which appeared to be fraudulent. The disputed domain name is currently redirected to a page displaying an error message.<\/span><\/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: <\/span><\/p>\n

(i) Complainant 1 holds rights in the “WÜRTH” trademark, while Complainant 2 holds rights in the “MODYF” trademark, as set forth in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both trademarks, as it fully incorporates the marks, with the only modification being the omission of the German umlaut “Ü” in “WÜRTH.”<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) The Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainants authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the “WÜRTH” and “MODYF” marks in any manner. Moreover, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, until recently, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that targeted Complainants’ trademarks and business by displaying an online shop, which—to the best of Complainants’ knowledge—was entirely fraudulent. As of the date of filing this Complaint, the website associated with the disputed domain name is offline.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users into believing it was an official or authorized website of Complainant. Given the global recognition of Complainants' trademarks, Respondent knew or should have known of their prior rights. Respondent has a pattern of registering similar fake online shops using brand names, reinforcing that the domain name is part of a broader fraudulent scheme that harms Complainants’ reputation.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT: <\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/span><\/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": "

Multiple Complainants<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the present proceeding, there are two Complainants, namely, Würth International AG (“Complainant 1”) and Würth Modyf GmbH & Co. KG (“Complainant 2”). Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” FORUM’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as either “a single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel further observes that previous UDRP precedents have established that multiple complainants may submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a sufficient connection, such as a licensing arrangement, a partnership, or an affiliation that justifies them acting as a single entity for the purposes of the proceeding. See Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik<\/em>, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), where the panel accepted this approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Complainants assert that they are both part of the globally operating Würth Group. Many Würth-affiliated companies bear the name of their founder, Adolf Würth, who established the Group in 1945 with the initial purpose of selling screws. All Würth Line companies derive their right to operate under the name “Würth” and “Wuerth,” while all affiliated companies derive their right to use the designation “Member of the Würth Group” from Complainant 1.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel also notes that Complainant 1 holds rights in the “WÜRTH” trademark, while Complainant 2 holds rights in the “MODYF” trademark, as set forth in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above.<\/span><\/p>\n

In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that there exists a sufficient nexus or connection between the Complainants and therefore treats them as a single entity in this proceeding. Accordingly, unless individual reference is necessary, Complainants shall be collectively referred to as “Complainant” in this decision.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Language of the Proceedings<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is in Chinese, making Chinese the default language of the proceedings. However, Complainant has requested that the proceedings be conducted in English. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, considering the specific circumstances of the case. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v. Yan Zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (Aug. 17, 2021) (proceedings conducted in English despite the Registration Agreement designating Japanese as the language).<\/span><\/p>\n

Complainant supports its request with the following arguments:<\/span><\/p>\n