Complainant states that it is “a trademark holding company, licensing the trademarks at issue within Siemens Group. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, which is the ultimate mother company of the Siemens Group. The turnover of the Siemens Group in 2024 was 75,9 billion Euro, and the group employs more than 310.000 people worldwide.” Complainant further states: “Siemens Group is headquartered in Berlin and Munich. It is one of the world’s largest corporations, providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries. Founded more than 175 years ago, the company is active - to name but a few examples - in the fields of Automation and Control, Power, Transportation, Logistics, Information and Communications, Medical Technology etc.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on October 21, 2025. A screenshot of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name provided by Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale at a “Buy Now” price of 5,738.40 euros. The website also states, among other things, “SIEMENS is a GENERIC WORD about electricity, and a German last name.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SIEMENS Trademark because the SIEMENS Trademark has “a global reputation,” “belongs to the best-known trademarks in the world today” and “[b]y virtue of the long use and the renown of the Complainant’s mark ‘SIEMENS’ this is exclusively associated with the Siemens Group.” Complainant further states that the Disputed Domain Name “is identical” to the SIEMENS Trademark because the top-level domain .app “may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not and has never been one of the Complainant’s representatives, employees or one of its licensees or is otherwise authorized to use the trademark ‘SIEMENS’” and “does not have any connection with” Complainant; the Disputed Domain Name “is currently parked with the Registrar” and “is offered for sale at the price of 5,738.40 EUR,” which means that “it is obvious that the Respondent has not used and is not currently using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; Respondent “has not been commonly known with the domain name”; “[i]n view of the long and extensive use of the mark ‘SIEMENS’ throughout the world, decades prior to the acquisition of the domain name ‘siemens.app’ from the Respondent, it is obvious that the Respondent is well aware of the existence of this mark, whose status and reputation has been assessed in various UDRP judgements in the past”; “[u]nder these circumstances, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation between the Respondent and the Siemens Group, which seems to be the Respondent’s actual intention in registering this domain name”; and “[t]he Respondent cannot make any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, while there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent would not aim at misleadingly diverting consumers and Internet users to other sites, searching for the legitimate websites of the Siemens Group.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant’s earlier rights on the trademark ‘SIEMENS’”; “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”; “registering a domain name for subsequent resale will lead to Panels finding that the domain is registered in bad faith, if the circumstances indicate that the Respondent’s intent in registering the disputed domain name was in fact to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit the Complainant’s trademark” and “[s]uch circumstances, alone or together, include the Respondent’s likely knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark”; “[i]t is impossible to assume that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s business and that it chose the element ‘Siemens’ for its domain name as a mere coincidence”; “the Respondent chose the domain name ‘siemens.app’, assuming that the Complainant would be interested in registering it, and therefore aiming to force the Complainant to buy it from the Respondent”; “in the scenario where this plan would not work, holding this domain would easily allow the Respondent to create a false impression to internet users that this is another legitimate domain address owned and used by the Complainant or its affiliate companies, in order to generate undue monetary profit”; and “the bad faith of the Respondent can be confirmed by the use of a privacy protection service, which makes it impossible to identify the Respondent.”<\/p>\n
In its Response, Respondent does not clearly address the UDRP’s three elements and provides significant irrelevant statements. Respondent provides the following relevant statements:<\/p>\n
[Respondent’s use of a privacy service was] not my choice, it is the default; most domains on internet have hidden whois. Why should I make an effort and spend time to change default settings.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Siemens is a fully generic word namely:<\/p>\n
A Last Name
A Physics term , namely 1 siemens= 1\/Ohm= 1 Ampere\/1 Volt= Coloumb square x Second \/ Meter square x kilogram
AND THIS IS ENOUGH FOR DEFENSE, unless there is a bad faith.
There is no bad-faith because there is no hint that this domain was registered or used in bad faith.
Trying to sell generic domains is completely ok, even if there is a trademark<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
it is clear from the content of the page, that Siemens INC\/AG whatever, is not the target of this listing<\/p>\n
Respondent has also submitted numerous emails in this proceeding, which are neither relevant nor permitted and, therefore, will not be considered by the Panel.<\/p>\n
Complainant has submitted a supplemental filing, in which Complainant states, among other things:<\/p>\n
[The SIEMENS Trademark] is intrinsically connected to the Group’s products and services in the mind of both the general and the specialized professional consumer public.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
[T]he burden of proof on displaying intention of legitimate use lies on the Respondent. While the latter claims he parked the domain with the Registrar until it is “used in another way”, and that he wants to protect it for “future use”, he does not provide any suggestions or examples whatsoever of such legitimate future uses of the domain name.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
It becomes evident that the only fathomable use of the domain name “siemens.app” would be trying to resell the domain to either the Complainant or ill-intending third parties that want to take advantage of a domain name containing a famous trademark such as the one of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
[F]or the purpose of assessing whether the second and the third UDPR elements are fulfilled, it must be concluded that the use in which the Respondent is engaging is a merely pretextual use to avoid being accused of bad faith in UDRP proceedings. In reality, the Respondent has registered and is offering the domain for sale in bad faith, in full knowledge of the existence of the Complainant’s identical earlier rights on the famous trademark “Siemens”.<\/p>\n
The Respondent limits himself into repeatedly claiming that he is providing “useful information” on the Siemens physics unit, and that this should qualify as legitimate use. By looking at the landing page of the Respondent, however, it is obvious that the information on the etymology of Siemens as a physics metric unit and is simple pretext to make the fact of selling the domain appear less malicious.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
[W]here the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a highly distinctive or famous mark, Panels have tended to view with a degree of skepticism a Respondent defense that the domain name was merely registered for legitimate speculation (based for example on any claimed dictionary meaning) as opposed to targeting a specific brand owner.<\/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 UDRP).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Panel declines to make a finding as to whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has not, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP).<\/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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it is the owner of Int’l Reg. No. 637074 (registered March 31, 1995) for SIEMENS for use in connection with goods and services in 23 international classes (the “SIEMENS Trademark”).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "siemens.app": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }