The disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2023, and is currently in active use for a website operated by a company identified as ‘Times United’ or ‘Times United Verifications and Inspections’.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant is a German company, founded in 1866, which operates in the fields of auditing, inspection, testing and system certification for industry. It has more than 1,000 locations and over 25,000 employees worldwide, including in Saudi Arabia, where it maintains six branches.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant further states that it is the owner of the Trademarks referred to above and that it owns a trade name and company identifier in Saudi Arabia, where it offers its services under the name TÜV SÜD.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n FACTS ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent submits that it operates a genuine Saudi business under the name ‘Times United Verifications and Inspections’ and that the disputed domain name is used in connection with that business. The Respondent states that it is active in the fields of inspection, testing, training and related certification services.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent further asserts that its business is duly established and registered in Saudi Arabia and refers to an investment licence issued by the Ministry of Investment indicating a capital of SAR 7 million, as well as its registration licence confirming its genuine presence in Riyadh.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " Both parties referred to the prior decision in WIPO Case No. D2025-4484 (Tüv Nord AG v. Ammar Khan), dated December 30, 2025. That case concerned the same domain name and the same registrant (Respondent), but involved a different complainant (Tüv Nord AG, rather than Tüv Süd AG). The present Complainant (Tüv Süd AG) submits that it is not affiliated, from a corporate law perspective, with the complainant in the earlier case (Tüv Nord AG).<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " THE COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n As regards the first element, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TÜV and TÜV SÜD trademarks because it wholly incorporates the element “TÜV”, with the additional term “insp” merely describing “inspection” services and therefore not dispelling confusion. The omission of the umlaut is a mere technical necessity.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With respect to the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests because the domain name does not correspond to the Respondent’s company name “Times United” and was deliberately chosen to evoke the Complainant’s TÜV Trademark rather than any legitimate business identifier. It submits that the Respondent uses the domain to attract customers by creating a false impression of affiliation, which cannot constitute fair use even if confusion is dispelled after access to the website. The Complainant further questions the genuineness of the Respondent’s activities, alleging that the website serves primarily to divert customers and that services are in reality provided by a third party (Intercert), thereby reinforcing the absence of any bona fide offering. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent is using a privacy registration service.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As to the third element, the Complainant submits that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the well-known Complainant’s Trademarks, which predate the domain name and enjoy a strong presence, including in Saudi Arabia. It argues that the Respondent intentionally selected a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s Trademark in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation. The addition of “insp”, which directly relates to the Complainant’s field of activity, is said to reinforce the misleading association and demonstrate targeting of the Complainant.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n As regards the first element, the Respondent does not contest that the threshold test of confusing similarity may be met but emphasizes that this element is merely formal and that the decisive issues arise under the second and third elements. It nevertheless maintains that the domain name can plausibly be understood as an abbreviation of its business name ‘Times United Verifications and Inspections’, a view previously accepted in an earlier WIPO decision concerning the same domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding the second element, the Respondent argues that it has rights and legitimate interests because it operates a genuine business in Saudi Arabia under the name ‘Times United Verifications and Inspections’, supported by registrations, accreditations, client documents, and ongoing commercial activity. It submits that the domain name is a credible abbreviation of its business name and has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of services prior to notice of the dispute. The Respondent further contends that the website clearly presents its own branding, does not impersonate the Complainant, and has been recognised as legitimate in a prior WIPO decision, while the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case to the contrary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As to the third element, the Respondent denies any bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name, arguing that the domain name was chosen to reflect its own business description rather than to target the Complainant. It submits that there is no evidence of intent to impersonate the Complainant, sell the domain, or mislead users, and that the domain is used for an active, legitimate business website rather than for typical cybersquatting purposes. The Respondent also relies on the prior WIPO decision concerning the same domain name, which found no bad faith and recognised the genuineness of its business, and asserts that the present Complaint merely repeats previously rejected allegations.<\/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 shown the Respondent to lack 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 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": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Bart Van Besien"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence that it is the proprietor of the following trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademarks” or the “Complainant’s Trademarks”):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant also submitted certificates which, according to the Complainant, evidence ownership of the following trademark registrations in the United Arab Emirates:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The renewal certificate relating to the first mark (application number 46664; registration number 37758) states that it was renewed for a ten-year term from March 17, 2012 to March 17, 2022. The certificate relating to the second mark (application number 46665; registration number 39534) refers only to the initial ten-year term of protection from March 17, 2002 and does not contain any indication of renewal.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant has not provided evidence as to the current status of these marks. The Panel has, on its own initiative, consulted publicly available trademark databases but has not identified any information confirming that these marks remain in force.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Given that the burden of proof in these proceedings rests with the Complainant, the Panel will take into account only the above-mentioned European Union and German trademarks. The Panel will not take into account the alleged, but unsubstantiated, trademark rights in the United Arab Emirates.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"tuvinsp.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n