The Complainant is Husqvarna AB, the parent company of the Husqvarna Group, which was founded in 1689. The Husqvarna Group is a world-leading provider of innovative products and solutions for forest, park and garden care. It is present in more than 100 countries and sells its products to thousands of dealers and leading retailers worldwide. The Husqvarna Group has 12,000 employees and achieved net sales of more than SEK 46 billion and an operating income (EBIT) of SEK 2,89 billion in 2025.<\/p>\n
The GARDENA brand became part of the Husqvarna Group in 2007. However, the brand's origins date back to 1961, when GARDENA was founded in Germany by entrepreneurs Werner Kress and Eberhard Kastner. Today, the GARDENA brand is present in over 80 countries around the world.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant, under its GARDENA brand, offers a broad range of gardening products across its markets. It is a global leader in residential watering and smart watering solutions and holds a strong market position in gardening tools, including tools for lawn, tree and shrub care, as well as soil cultivation. The Complainant also invests significant financial resources in promoting products marketed under the GARDENA trademarks. Furthermore, the GARDENA brand and its products have received numerous awards.<\/span><\/p>\n A 2025 Polish market survey conducted by Biostat found that 75.4% of respondents recognized the GARDENA trademark. Of the respondents who recognized the mark, 70.3% associated GARDENA with garden equipment, and a further 22.7% with the gardening sector.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is the owner of a large number of trademarks for the name GARDENA which are registered throughout the world.<\/span><\/p>\n The GARDENA trademarks are protected and used for a wide range of products, including various gardening, horticulture, agriculture, forestry, park maintenance and construction products as for example hand tools, chain saws, lawn mowing machines, garden tractors, hedge trimmers or power cutters, and have acquired considerable goodwill through their long-term use.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is also the holder of a number of domain names which include the term GARDENA, such as: <gardena.com>, <gardena.de>, <gardena.nl>, <gardena.se>, <gardena.cz>, <gardena.fr>, <gardena.pl> and<gardena.es>.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant notes that the domain names in dispute are:<\/p>\n 1) <aboutgardena.com>;<\/p>\n 2) <gardenawinkel.com>; <\/span><\/p>\n 3) <<\/span>gardenakorting.com>;<\/p>\n 4) <tuingardena.com>;<\/p>\n 5) <tuinopruiminggardena.com>;<\/p>\n 6) <<\/span>gardenatuinwinkel.com>.<\/p>\n Despite the fact that the registrar verification has revealed six different registrants for the six domain names in dispute, according to the Complainant, the available evidence indicates that (i) the disputed domain names are subject to common control by a single person or entity acting through multiple aliases, and (ii) the determination of the dispute in a single consolidated proceeding would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to the parties.<\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant outlines the following circumstances to support a finding of common control:<\/p>\n a. Identical naming pattern since all the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s GARDENA trademark together with descriptive English or Dutch terms: “about”, “winkel” (Dutch for “shop”), “korting” (Dutch for “discount”), “tuin” (Dutch for “garden”), “opruiming” (Dutch for “clearance sale”), and “tuinwinkel” (Dutch for “garden shop”).<\/p>\n b. Common targeting since all the disputed domain names target the same Complainant and the same brand.<\/p>\n c. Highly similar e-mail-address structure since all the registrants’ e-mail addresses follow the same pattern, namely a personal name combined with a non-standard e-mail domain that appears to have been systematically created for registration purposes (e.g., “mailhservicess.com”, “bestmailvip.com”, “zmailonlinesale.com”, “shopmailhkvipser.com”, and “onlineusemail.com”). None of the registrants use a mainstream e-mail provider.<\/p>\n d. The registrants of <tuingardena.com> and <tuinopruiminggardena.com>, although presented as different individuals, use the same e-mail domain (@shopmailhkvipser.com). Both domain names were registered through the same registrar on the same date, 13 June 2025, within nine minutes of each other.<\/p>\n e. <\/span>Several postal codes disclosed in the registrar verifications do not appear to correspond to the stated cities or counties. For example, postal code 582277 does not appear to correspond to Zigui County, and postal code 437214 does not appear to correspond to Suzhou City, Anhui Province. In addition, two addresses share the same unusual formatting, namely “No, 417, Jianjian, Road” and “No, 629, Wenan, Road.”<\/p>\n f. The disputed domain names were registered in two clusters (May–June 2024 and June 2025) through only two registrars, and in all cases the registrants data were shielded by a privacy service.<\/p>\n g. <\/span><\/strong>The websites to which the disputed domain names resolve share a similar layout, design, and content, including the unauthorized use of several copyrighted photographs belonging to the Complainant.<\/p>\n Accordingly, it is the Complainant's view that the Panel could consolidate the claims relating to all six disputed domain names in a single administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant infers that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the GARDENA trademark since they entirely include the Complainant's trademark combined with English or Dutch generic terms.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant informs that the domain names in dispute are not connected with nor authorized by the Complainant. In particular, the Complainant has never authorized or permitted the Respondents to use the mark GARDENA in its domain names. The Complainant also notes that the Respondents are not <\/span>commonly known by any of the domain names in dispute<\/span>. <\/p>\n The Complainant also assumes that the domain names in dispute were registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for the registration was and is to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent’s impersonation of the Complainant is designed to deceive third parties into believing that the domain names in dispute are owned by the Complainant and are offering legitimate products. In particular, the Complainant notes that if internet users proceed to order and purchase products from the websites, they are asked to fill in personal information - name and surname, address, e-mail address and phone number.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant considers that the provision of incomplete and false information as well as the use of privacy shield at the time of registration of the disputed domain names, and the failure to respond to the Complainant’s communications intended to inform the Respondents of the ongoing abuses, are further factors that help to demonstrate the registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>",
"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 names.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " Complainant´s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>",
"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": " Consolidation of Respondents.<\/p>\n According to Article 3(c) of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"Rules\"), the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. According to Article 10(e) of Rules a Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.<\/p>\n The Complainant requests to consolidate its claims against the registrants of the disputed domain names notwithstanding that the registrant details are different, on the grounds that all the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings. The Complainant, in particular and among other things, relies on the fact that all six domains resolve to websites that are substantively identical, impersonating the Complainant's business and using its branding and copyrighted photographs. In addition, the Complainant outlines that all the disputed domains were registered in two clusters (May–June 2024 and June 2025) through only two registrars, and in all case the registrant's identity was shielded by a privacy service. Additionally, the Complainant notes an identical naming pattern since all the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s GARDENA trademark together with descriptive English or Dutch terms.<\/p>\n The Panel agrees with the Complainant observations and in particular notes that all the websites connected to the disputed domain names share extremely similar features and design and moreover all the websites include the Complainant's GARDENA trademark and photographs (as reproduced in the Complainant's official website). In the Panel's view this is a crucial point in order to conclude that all the disputed domain names are subject to common control.<\/p>\n In the light of the above Complainant considerations, and notwithstanding the clear existence of six different registrants (Respondents), the Panel considers that all the disputed domain names are under the same common control. <\/p>\n In previous cases similar to the one at hand the Panel has decided to order the consolidation (see, for example, CAC Case No. 107587) and the Panel therefore agrees to the Complainant’s request, even considering that, due to the circumstances of the present case, it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings. <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Guido Maffei"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-11 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has based this complaint on the following registrations for GARDENA owned by the same Husqvarna AB:<\/p>\n\n
<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"aboutgardena.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"gardenawinkel.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
"gardenakorting.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"tuingardena.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"tuinopruiminggardena.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"gardenatuinwinkel.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}