The Complainant owns the well-known trademark PHILIPS and has extensive trademark registrations around the world including Turkey, which predate the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The Respondents registered the four disputed domain names on 26 November 2017 using a privacy service.<\/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": "
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its well-known PHILIPS trademark and cites passages from the following cases:<\/p>\n
The Complainant also cites from CAC Case No. 104321 <philips-center.com> and <philips-coffee-service.com etc.>: ‘’A side-by-side comparison of the domain names and the PHILLIPS [...] trademarks demonstrates that [...] <philips-center.com> [and] <philips-coffee-service.com> [...] are confusingly similar to the marks in that they incorporate entirely Complainant's trademarks. The additions of dashes plus words do not create distinct names but suggest a relationship with Complainant which Complainant denies and does not exist.’’<\/p>\n
The Complainant then asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and states:<\/p>\n
Next the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Complainant requests consolidation of the dispute regarding all four disputed domain names, and asserts they are all owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert.<\/p>\n
A Complaint may deal with multiple domain names if they are registered by the same person (paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules). The preliminary gatekeeper for admitting the Complaint is the administrative provider (see Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons<\/em>, WIP Case No. D2010-0281). The Panel then makes the final decision to allow consolidate multiple domain name disputes (paragraph10(e) of the UDRP Rules).<\/p>\n The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition <\/em>at paragraph 4.11 deals with how panels address consolidation scenarios. Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties, and would be procedurally efficient. The party seeking consolidation has the burden of providing evidence in support of its request.<\/p>\n All the registrants of the disputed domain names have the same address in Turkey, the same phone number and use <.gmail> for their email address. It is improbable that four supposedly different registrants would share so many common characteristics unless they were the same person.<\/p>\n Each of the four disputed domain names use the same naming pattern consisting of the Complainant’s trademark and two words in Turkish meaning “projector”, “service” or “repair”. Evidence submitted with the Complaint shows that the disputed domain names have the same registrar, the same web host, similar website content and were registered on the same day. They bear all the hallmarks of being under common control.<\/p>\n The Panel finds that the registrants of the disputed domain names are the same person, and is persuaded that it is fair and equitable to all parties, and procedurally efficient to consolidate the disputes in one Complaint.<\/p>\n 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": [
"Veronica Bailey"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-30 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n\n