{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107343",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-02-25 13:42:13",
    "domain_names": [
        "thyssenkupp.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Dr. Claudia Pappas (thyssenkrupp AG- thyssenkrupp Intellectual Property GmbH)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Turkey Export"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Complainant is a prominent German company engaged in the production of steel and related goods and services. Its name was formed as the result of the amalgamation of two prominent steel companies, Thyssen and Krupp. It is now one of the largest companies in the world. The Complainant owns the abovementioned trademark and many other trademarks for THYSSENKRUPP. It also owns a series of domain names that it has registered, including &lt;thyssenkrupp.com&gt; that it uses in its business and to market its goods and services under the THYSSENKRUPP trademark. The Respondent has registered the domain name &lt;thyssenkupp.com&gt; (&ldquo;the disputed domain name&rdquo;) on January 26, 2025 which embodies the THYSSENKRUPP trademark with the deletion of the letter \"r\" and has caused it to resolve to a website where it has been used to perpetrate a phishing scheme targeting a client of the Complainant. The Complainant is concerned at this infringement of its trademark and the use of the disputed domain name and also at the potential for further abuse if the disputed domain name remains in the ownership of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Complainant has instituted this proceeding to have the disputed domain name transferred to itself.<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Contentions of the parties<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Complainant<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the THYSSENKRUPP trademark, the only change being the deletion of the latter \"r&rdquo; from the trademark, which is typosquatting by the Respondent. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark, as internet users would see it as invoking the Complainant&rsquo;s THYSSENKRUPP trademark and may well come to the conclusion that it is a genuine and official domain name of the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The presence of the generic Top Level Domain &ldquo;.com&rdquo; cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity as all domain names require such an extension.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a <em>bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services; and<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to divert internet users misleadingly or to tarnish the THYSSENKRUPP trademark; and<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">there is no other ground which could conceivably confer on the Respondent a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">That is so because:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send a fraudulent invoice to an individual purporting to be an official invoice from the Complainant which it is not;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant at the time it registered the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the registration of the disputed domain name constitutes an attempt to derive unjustified commercial benefit on the back of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark rights;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent had no prior rights in the disputed domain name and therefore had no reason for registering it, other than to trade on the Complainant&rsquo;s reputation and economic success, which constitutes bad faith;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the disputed domain name misleads internet users into believing that it is associated with the legitimate business of the Complainant;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has clearly been motivated by the intention to cause confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent by means of misleading internet users and diverting internet traffic away from the Complainant and towards the Respondent.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">As the Complainant will have established by the evidence all of the elements it is required to prove under the UDRP, it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely the transfer of the disputed domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">RESPONDENT<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">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).<\/span><\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">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).<\/span><\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">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).<\/span><\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">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.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Neil Brown"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Complainant has established by evidence that it owns the European Community trademark for THYSSENKRUPP, registered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office, number 014552343, registered on April 20, 2016 and other trademarks for THYSSENKRUPP registered domestically and internationally.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "thyssenkupp.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}