{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107362", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-04 14:41:28", "domain_names": [ "thyssenkrups.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "thyssenkrupp AG" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Edward James" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a German conglomerate with more than 98.000 employees and a revenue of more than 35 billion EUR in fiscal 2023\/2024. It was ranked tenth largest worldwide by revenue in 2015. The Complainant’s company name “thyssenkrupp” is the result of a merger of two German well-known steel companies, Thyssen AG (founded in 1891) and Krupp AG (founded in 1811).<\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains a strong online presence and operates its main webpage at “https:\/\/www.thyssenkrupp.com\/”, which it was registered on January 28, 1998.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <thyssenkrups.com> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on February 15th<\/sup>, 2025 using Privacy Protected services and the Respondent used an email address linked to the Disputed Domain Name to perpetrate a phishing scheme targeting the Complainant's client.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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

First element: Similarity<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <thyssenkrups.com> is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and domains.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain “thyssenkrupp”. The Disputed Domain Name replaces the last letter \"p\" with \"s\", which is a minor typographical alteration. This kind of misspelling does not create a distinct identity and is a common tactic in cybersquatting cases. This alteration does not significantly alter the appearance, pronunciation, or overall impression of the mark, creating a strong likelihood of confusion among Internet users. This tactic of slight misspelling, commonly referred to as \"typosquatting,\", aims to divert traffic from the Complainant’s official domain name \"thyssenkrupp.com\" by exploiting user errors in typing. Such deliberate imitation demonstrates bad faith registration, as the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant's reputation and goodwill associated with the \"thyssenkrupp\" brand to mislead users for potentially illegitimate purposes​​​. Phonetically, the change is negligible, and visually, it is a minor deviation that users could easily overlook, increasing the likelihood of confusion. Internet users who come across the Disputed Domain Name will therefore undoubtedly recognize the Complainant's trademarks and company name in it and come to the erroneous conclusion that it is the Complainant's domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also mentioned that the term “thyssenkrupp” certainly has a distinctive character in the Disputed Domain Name. It is fanciful and has no meaning at all for any goods and services are finally offered under the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the element “thyssenkrupp” coincides with the Complainant’s company name and trademarks. In the present case, particular account must be taken of the fact that the Complainant's trade mark is an unusual term consisting of the names of the two undertakings which made up the Complainant, namely ”thyssen” and ”krupp”.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect a domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any of its trademarks, nor has it been authorized to register or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and company name. Rather, the Respondent has no connection at all with the Complainant or any of its affiliates.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for any legitimate business or non-commercial fair use purposes. Instead, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name’s email address to send phishing emails, further demonstrating bad faith use.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark, making it unlikely that the Respondent could have a legitimate interest in it.  Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

Third element: Bad faith<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent's bad faith in registering and using the Disputed Domain Name is evident through its malicious activities, which have directly harmed the Complainant and its customers. Specifically, the Respondent has used an email address linked to the Disputed Domain Name to perpetrate a phishing scheme targeting the Complainant's client. The fraudulent email impersonated the Complainant’s legitimate business operations. The provided evidence demonstrates that the Respondent intentionally misrepresented itself as the Complainant, exploiting the goodwill and reputation of the \"thyssenkrupp\" trademark to deceive and defraud.<\/p>\n

In accordance with the Complainant, the Respondent has intentionally disrupted the Complainant's business and attempted to confuse consumers for its financial gain. This clear intent to exploit the Complainant's trademark for fraudulent purposes not only undermines the legitimate interests of the Complainant but also jeopardizes the trust and security of its clients.<\/p>\n

The above emphasizes the fact that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks, company names and domains when choosing the Disputed Domain Name. This is because the Complainant is not only the owner of the aforementioned trademark rights, which exist and are used worldwide, but also the name \"thyssenkrupp\" is legitimately used by a large number of other companies in the Group and is part of various other legitimate domain names.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant also maintains a strong online presence and operates its main webpage at www.thyssenkrupp.com. The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous additional domain names containing its trademarks “thyssenkrupp”, “thyssen” and “krupp”. Considering the Complainant’s reputation and its market presence, it is clear that the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its “thyssenkrupp” trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, given the widespread use of the Complainant's “thyssenkrupp” mark and the Respondent’s lack of association with the Complainant, constitutes an attempt to derive unjustified commercial benefit on the back of the Complainant’s rights.<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s company name as well as its trademarks “thyssenkrupp” have a strong reputation and are widely known in Germany and beyond. Moreover, prior UDRP panels have held that the registration of a domain name which appears to be connected to a well-known trademark has been found to constitute opportunistic bad faith.<\/p>\n

As pointed out above, the Respondent has no prior right in the Disputed Disputed Domain Name. There is no other reason to choose a domain name which alludes to the Complainant’s well-known trademark “thyssenkrupp” as the distinctive and therefore dominant element, except for the fact that the Respondent’s obviously intends to participate in the Complainant’s reputation and economic success. The Respondent thus purchased\/registered the Disputed Domain Name containing the Complainant’s well-known trademark at least with the intent to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation. Such use is neither a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

Free riding on the rights of another does not constitute a bona fide use of a domain name, and thus the Respondent cannot claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. For these reasons the Respondent could not have been using or preparing to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services prior to the dispute.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant enjoys trademark protection for the word marks “thyssenkrupp” and “ThyssenKrupp” by means of several international and national trademark registrations, including but not limited to: i) the International Registration Nr. 713857 ThyssenKrupp registered on April 29, 1999 at classes 01, 04, 06, 07, 09, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 37, 39, ii) the International Registration Nr. 731636 ThyssenKrupp registered on July 07, 1999 at classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42, iii) the International Registration Nr. 1545329 ThyssenKrupp registered on June 2, 2020 at classes 09, 16, 18, 25 & 35.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain names containing its trademarks “thyssenkrupp”, “thyssen”, “krupp”, for instance: the domain name “thyssenkrupp.com”, which it was registered on January 28, 1998.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "thyssenkrups.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }