Anker Innovations Limited v Julia Baumgaertner, Gloeckner Ziegler, Sara
WIPO Case No. D2025-2110
•25-07-2025
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Anker Innovations Limited v. Julia Baumgaertner, Gloeckner Ziegler, Sara
Lukas, Naumann Max, Yanling Lv, Marie Pfaff, Mario Zimmerman,
Bumgarner Jens, Jens Bumgarner, Dresdner Sara, Peters Rothstein, Jonas
Wolf, Heike Werfel, Peter Vogler, Anna Bernd, Bumgarner Freeh, Kluge Pfaff,
Kbhler Schmitz, Jennifer Walter, Neumann Gloeckner, Fruehauf Jennifer,
Eisenhower Furst, Koehler Jung, Ackermann Mehler, Philipp Austerlitz
Case No. D2025-2110
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Anker Innovations Limited, Hong Kong, China, represented by Boehmert & Boehmert,
Germany.
The Respondents are Julia Baumgaertner, Germany, Gloeckner Ziegler, Germany, Sara Lukas, Germany,
Naumann Max, Germany, Yanling Lv, China, Marie Pfaff, Germany, Mario Zimmerman, Germany,
Bumgarner Jens, Jens Bumgarner, Germany, Dresdner Sara, Germany, Peters Rothstein, Germany, Jonas
Wolf, Germany, Heike Werfel, Germany, Peter Vogler, Germany, Anna Bernd, Germany, Bumgarner Freeh,
Germany, Kluge Pfaff, Germany, Kbhler Schmitz, Germany, Jennifer Walter, Germany, Neumann Gloeckner,
Germany, Fruehauf Jennifer, Germany, Eisenhower Furst, Germany, Koehler Jung, Germany, Ackermann
Mehler, Germany, and Philipp Austerlitz, Germany.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name <anker-belgium.com> is registered with Metaregistrar BV.
The disputed domain names <ankercanadastore.com>, <ankerfinland.com>, <ankergr.com>,
<anker-italia.com>, <ankernorway.com>, <ankeruaedubai.com>, and <au-ankeraustralia.com> are
registered with 1API GmbH.
The disputed domain name <ankerfranceparis.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc.
The disputed domain names <ankerindiawebsite.com>, <anker-magyarorszag.com>, <anker-polska.com>, <anker-portugal.com>, <ankerslovenia.com> and <soundcoreenmexico.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc.
The disputed domain name <anker-israel.com>, <ankersperu.com> and <anker-sverige.com> are registered with NameSilo, LLC.
page 2
The disputed domain names <ankerjapanstore.com>, <anker-schweiz.com>, <ankerthailandstore.com>, and
<soundcore-peru.com> are registered with Hongkong Kouming International Limited.
The disputed domain name <soundcorecanada.com> is registered with CNOBIN Information Technology
Limited.
The disputed domain name <soundcoreportugal.com> is registered with Web Commerce Communications
Limited dba WebNic.cc.
The disputed domain name <soundcore-thailand.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
Metaregistrar BV, 1API GmbH, Cosmotown, Inc., Dynadot Inc., NameSilo, LLC, Hongkong Kouming dba WebNic.cc, and Key-Systems GmbH are separately and jointly referred to below as the “Registrar”.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 28,
2025. On May 30 and June 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar requests for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 30, May 31, June 2, June 3, June 4, and
June 11, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses disclosing
registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names that differed from certain of the named
Respondents (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org, REDACTED FOR
PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org and Domain
Admin, Whoisprotection.cc) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 12, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all disputed domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint in English on June 16, 2025.
On June 12, 2025, the Center informed the Parties, in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for four disputed domain names is Chinese. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on June 16, 2025. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2025. The Respondents did not submit any
response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on July 11, 2025.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 14, 2025. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
page 3
4. Factual Background
The Complainant was founded in 2011 and now produces a range of electronic goods, including mobile chargers, audio components, home entertainment, home security, robotic appliances, and smart home appliances. The Complainant uses the ANKER brand and several sub-brands, including SOUNDCORE.
The Complainant holds trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including the following:
| − | European Union trademark registration number 010358406 for ANKER, registered on April 26, 2012; |
| − | European Union trademark registration number 016662355 for a semi-figurative ANKER mark, |
registered on October 11, 2017; and
| − | European Union trademark registration number 015223712 for SOUNDCORE, registered on August |
12, 2016.
The above trademark registrations are current. The Complainant also uses the domain names <anker.com> and <soundcore.com> in connection with websites that prominently display its ANKER and SOUNDCORE logos, respectively, and offer its electronic products for sale. 1
The Respondents are identified as various individuals.
The disputed domain names were registered on the dates and in the names shown in the following table:
| Registration date | Disputed domain name | Registrant name |
| July 1, 2024 | <soundcorecanada.com> | Bumgarner Jens, Jens Bumgarner |
| July 1, 2024 | <soundcore-thailand.com> | Mario Zimmerman |
| July 4, 2024 | <soundcoreportugal.com> | Naumann Max |
| October 1, 2024 | <ankerfranceparis.com> | Yanling Lv |
| October 8, 2024 | <ankerindiawebsite.com> | Heike Werfel |
| October 18, 2024 | <ankerslovenia.com> | Peter Vogler |
| November 21, 2024 | <anker-italia.com> | Neumann Gloeckner |
| November 21, 2024 | <anker-polska.com> | Peters Rothstein |
| November 21, 2024 | <anker-portugal.com> | Jonas Wolf |
| November 21, 2024 | <anker-israel.com> | Julia Baumgaertner |
| November 22, 2024 | <ankersperu.com> | Gloeckner Ziegler |
| November 23, 2024 | <anker-sverige.com> | Sara Lukas |
| November 28, 2024 | <anker- | Dresdner Sara |
| magyarorszag.com> | ||
| December 4, 2024 | <ankerfinland.com> | Bumgarner Freeh |
| December 4, 2024 | <ankerthailandstore.com> | Koehler Jung |
| December 6, 2024 | <anker-schweiz.com> | Ackermann Mehler |
| December 7, 2024 | <anker-belgium.com> | Marie Pfaff |
| December 7, 2024 | <soundcore-peru.com> | Philipp Austerlitz |
| December 11, 2024 | <ankerjapanstore.com> | Eisenhower Furst |
| December 25, 2024 | <ankernorway.com> | Kluge Pfaff |
| December 25, 2024 | <ankeruaedubai.com> | Kbhler Schmitz |
| December 25, 2024 | <au-ankeraustralia.com> | Kbhler Schmitz |
| December 27, 2024 | <ankergr.com> | Jennifer Walter |
| January 7, 2025 | <ankercanadastore.com> | Fruehauf Jennifer |
| January 8, 2025 | <soundcoreenmexico.com> | Anna Bernd |
1The Panel notes its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and has visited the Complainant’s
websites, which are publicly available, to verify the Complainant’s submission regarding those sites. The Panel considers this process
of verification useful in assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.8.
page 4
The disputed domain names resolve to online shops displaying the Complainant’s ANKER logo or the
Complainant’s SOUNDCORE logo, offering for sale what purport to be the Complainant’s electronic
products. The images displayed are reproduced from the Complainant’s websites. The Respondents’ online
shops are in different languages and display prices in different currencies, depending on the country to which
they are directed, as indicated in the respective associated disputed domain names.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ANKER and SOUNDCORE marks.
The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondents to use any of its trademarks or to register domain names incorporating its ANKER and SOUNDCORE marks. The Respondents are not authorized distributors or resellers of ANKER or SOUNDCORE products. The disputed domain names suggest an affiliation with the Complainant and the associated websites strongly indicate that the online shops not only pretend to have an affiliation with the Complainant but are also fake. The websites are largely made from stolen marketing material from the Complainant and any further information on the terms or services of the websites are either insubstantial placeholders or copied from other websites.
The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. It is evident from the use of the disputed domain names that the Respondents knew of the Complainant’s ANKER and SOUNDCORE trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. The Respondents are using the disputed domain names to operate fake online shops designed to trick Internet users into believing that they are trustworthy, official shops of the Complainant. Recently, the Complainant has received a large number of complaints
from customers who were misled into placing orders on fake online shops and did not receive the ordered
goods, which has negatively affected the Complainant’s brands’ reputation.
B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issues
A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents
The Complaint and the amendment to the Complaint were filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Two disputed domain names
page 5
(<ankeruaedubai.com> and <au-ankeraustralia.com>) are registered in the name of the same domain name
holder.
In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2.
As regards common control, the Panel notes that the 20 “anker”-formative disputed domain names were the SOUNDCORE trademark with a geographical reference (in one case, <soundcoreenmexico.com>, with the addition of “en” connecting the two) and the gTLD extension “.com”, and two of these (<soundcore-peru.com>, and <soundcoreenmexico.com>) were registered on or about the same date as two “anker”-formative disputed domain names. Both the “anker”-formative and “soundcore”-formative disputed domain names resolve to online shops that share the same layout for their main banner, product listings, and footer, and they all offer for sale what purport to be the Complainant’s products. Certain online shops display the same images as each other. In addition, all disputed domain names are hosted on Cloudflare name servers, and all but one are registered with contact street addresses in Germany that are incomplete, incorrect, or non-existent. In view of all these circumstances, the Panel is persuaded that the disputed domain names and associated websites are under common control.
registered in a relatively short period of approximately three months, following a naming pattern that
combines the ANKER trademark with a geographical reference and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD)
extension “.com”. Three of these disputed domain names, <ankeruaedubai.com>, <au-ankeraustralia.com>,
and <ankerfranceparis.com> add an extra geographical reference, four of these disputed domain names
<ankerjapanstore.com>, <ankerthailandstore.com>, <ankerindiawebsite.com>, and
<ankercanadastore.com> add the word “store” or “website”, and one, <ankersperu.com> adds the letter “s”.
As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
B. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is English, except for four disputed domain names (<ankerjapanstore.com>, <ankerthailandstore.com>, <anker-schweiz.com>, and <soundcore-peru.com>) for which the language of the Registration Agreements is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.
The Complaint and the amendment to the Complaint were filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English because it can be assumed that the Respondent is capable of communicating in English, given the strong evidence indicating that all the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity, and that some of the associated websites are partly or wholly in English.
The Panel has already found that the disputed domain names are under common control. The Registration Agreements for most of them are in English, from which it can be inferred that the Respondent is able to communicate in that language. Further, despite the Center having sent an email regarding the language of the proceeding and the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in both Chinese and English, the Respondent did not make any submission with respect to the language of the proceeding or indicate any interest in otherwise participating in the proceeding.
page 6
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding is English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must demonstrate each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the ANKER trademark and the SOUNDCORE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
Each disputed domain name wholly incorporates one of the Complainant’s marks (i.e., ANKER or SOUNDCORE). Each disputed domain name adds one or more geographical references (i.e., “Canada”, “Thailand”, “Portugal”, “France”, “Paris”, “India”, “Slovenia”, “Italia” meaning Italy, “Polska” meaning Poland, “Israel”, “Peru”, “Sverige” meaning Sweden, “Magyarorszag” meaning Hungary, “Finland”, “Schweiz” meaning Switzerland, “Belgium”, “Japan”, “Norway”, “UAE” meaning United Arab Emirates, “Dubai”, “Australia”, “Mexico”, “au” for Australia, or “gr” for Greece, in some cases separated by a hyphen) or descriptive words (i.e., “store” or “website”), “en” meaning “in”, or the letter “s”. Despite these additions, the ANKER mark or the SOUNDCORE mark is recognizable within each disputed domain name. The only other element in each disputed domain name is a gTLD extension (“.com”) which, as a standard requirement of domain name registration, may be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to one or other of the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
page 7
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.
| SOUNDCORE trademark with a mere geographical reference (and, in some instances, a descriptive term | In the present case, the disputed domain names combine the Complainant’s ANKER trademark or prominent disclaimer of a relationship with the Complainant. In view of these circumstances, the Panel does not consider that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. |
| Moreover, the Respondent is identified in the WhoIs database by the names set out in the table in Section 4 above. While most of these names appear to be false, nothing on the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. | |
| Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. | |
| Based on the record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. | |
| C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith | |
| The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth of these circumstances is as follows: | |
| “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement | |
| of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” | |
| In the present case, the disputed domain names were registered in 2024 or 2025, years after the registration of the Complainant’s ANKER and SOUNDCORE trademarks. The disputed domain names resolve to online shops that display the ANKER logo or SOUNDCORE logo as used on the Complainant’s websites, display | |
| photographs from the Complainant’s websites, and offer for sale what purport to be the Complainant’s products. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the Complainant and its trademarks in mind. | |
| As regards use, the disputed domain names resolve to online shops that are presented as if they were operated or endorsed by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. This use is intentional and for commercial gain. In view of the findings in Section 6.2B above, the Panel finds that these circumstances fall within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. |
page 8
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain names <anker-belgium.com>, <ankercanadastore.com>,
<ankerfinland.com>, <ankerfranceparis.com>, <ankergr.com>, <ankerindiawebsite.com>, <anker-
israel.com>, <anker-italia.com>, <ankerjapanstore.com>, <anker-magyarorszag.com>, <ankernorway.com>,
<anker-polska.com>, <anker-portugal.com>, <anker-schweiz.com>, <ankerslovenia.com>,
<ankersperu.com>, <anker-sverige.com>, <ankerthailandstore.com>, <ankeruaedubai.com>, <au-
ankeraustralia.com>, <soundcorecanada.com>, <soundcoreenmexico.com>, <soundcore-peru.com>,
<soundcoreportugal.com>, and <soundcore-thailand.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Matthew Kennedy/
Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2025
0
0
0