{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108004", "time_of_filling": "2025-11-13 09:48:19", "domain_names": [ "hypro-pumps.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pentair Flow Technologies, LLC" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ " Vladimir Veselovskiy" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant claims to be part of the Pentair Group, founded in 1966 and global leader in smart and sustainable water solutions. <\/p>\n

Pentair Group serves the world through three primary segments: Pool, Water Solutions, and Flow. The Pentair Group’s mission to help the world sustainably <\/span>Move, Improve, and Enjoy<\/em> <\/span>water is executed by a global workforce of approximately 9,750 employees operating from locations in more than 150 countries. The Group's financial strength is demonstrated by its 2024 net sales, which were approximately $4.1 billion.<\/p>\n

\"HYPRO\" is a distinguished and enduring brand in the agricultural fluid handling and precision application sector, currently operating under the ownership of Complainant. The \"HYPRO\" brand has established a legacy spanning over 75 years, during which its solutions have been instrumental in helping customers achieve breakthrough performance. The brand is specifically recognized for developing best-in-class fluid handling and precision application componentry, including agricultural spray pumps, nozzles and related parts. <\/span><\/p>\n

The domain name in dispute was registered on January 1, 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <<\/span>hypro-pumps.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark \"HYPRO\". In particular, in the Complainant's view, the circumstance that the disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark \"HYPRO\" with a hyphen separating it from the generic term \"pumps\" clearly demonstrates that the same disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's previous registered sign \"HYPRO\".<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Actually, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website presenting HYPRO-branded products even if the Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the \"HYPRO\" trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant notes that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it corresponds to an existing legitimate business.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, it is the Complainant's view that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name are in bad faith.   The Complainant considers that the Respondent could not plausibly be unaware of Complainant’s mark when he registered the disputed domain name.  Furthermore, the Complainant stresses that the content of the website linked to the disputed domain name imitates Complainant’s products and presentation, seeks to compete directly with the Complainant, and misleadingly incorporates the \"HYPRO\" trademark in the displayed products.<\/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": "

The Complainant´s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/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": [ "Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks. In particular, <\/span>Pentair Flow Technologies, LLC, owns:<\/span><\/p>\n