The Complainant is Coöperatie SNB-REACT U.A acting under a POA dated 4 March 2024 from Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eindhoven, Netherlands,
The Respondent is Nguyen Duc Dat, Ha Noi, Vietnam.
The disputed domain name is <philipsvietnam.com> registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d\/b\/a Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).
Philips, represented by the Complainant, is a global company with international operations all over the world.
The disputed domain name was registered on 20 August 2015. The disputed domain name resolved to a website offering Philips lighting products for sale to consumers in Vietnam.<\/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 contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
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 not , 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 not, 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>\n
The principle established under the Rules (Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), paragraph 11(a), is that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” The language of the proceeding is to be held in English.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Victoria McEvedy (Presiding Panelist)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips), is the owner of the well-known trademark PHILIPS, and has many registered trade marks around the world, including: <\/p>\n 1. The EUTM No. 000205971 for PHILIPS, a word mark, registered on 22 October 1999 in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42, in particular in class 11 for “apparatus and installations for lighting;”<\/p>\n Further, the Complainant says that PHILIPS is a famous mark world over. The PHILIPS products and services focus on professional health products and services, consumer electronics (TV, audio, accessories, projection apparatus, electronic locks, water purification products), personal care and baby products, and lighting products and domestic appliances. <\/p>\n Many other panels have found it to be a famous mark, including: \n
a. In CAC Case No. 103077 <philipspulseoximeters.com>, the Panel held that: (“There are no doubts that the Complainant’s trademarks' PHILIPS” are well-known worldwide as confirmed by the previous panels (e.g. WIPO Case No. D2010-1494))”.
b. In CAC Case No. 104326 <philips-orginal.com>, referencing CAC Case No. 103077 < philipspulseoximeters.com>: (“There are no doubts that the Complainant’s trademarks' PHILIPS” are well-known worldwide as confirmed by the previous panels (e.g. WIPO Case No. D2010-1494)).”
c. In CAC Case No. 105670 <PhilipsLumea.com>: (“Due to the long existence of Complainant´s marks being well known (see, as an example CAC-UDRP-104326 <philips-orginal.com> for many others), the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the domain name.)”
d. In CAC Case No. 104321 <msk-remont-philips.com etc.> the Panel references the: (“Goodwill flowing from its widely known or famous brands).”
e. In CAC Case No. 103871 <Philips-helper.com etc.>: (“the above leads the Panel to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the Respondents, being aware of the goodwill of the Complainant’s well-known PHILIPS trademark, have registered the disputed domain names targeting this trademark in an attempt to exploit its goodwill by attracting Internet users and confusing them to believe that the disputed domain names offer the services of an entity that is affiliated to the Complainant”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"philipsvietnam.com": "REJECTED"
}
}