Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. DBA Ge Appliance v Karl Schnurch

WIPO Case No. D2025-1945

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. DBA GE Appliance v. Karl Schnurch,
EdenMedia

Case No. D2025-1945

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. DBA GE Appliance, United States, represented by

CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Karl Schnurch, EdenMedia, Seychelles.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <monogramappliances.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-

Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 15, 2025. On May 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 16, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 19, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 21, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 12, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant designs, manufactures and sells a variety of home appliances, including premium
appliances under the brand MONOGRAM. The Complainant devotes significant efforts to marketing its
MONOGRAM line of appliances, including through its social media pages and its brand website at
“ which received 83,516 visits in April 2025 alone.

The Complainant has held a trademark registration for the word MONOGRAM (the “MONOGRAM Mark”) in various jurisdictions since 1991, including United States trademark registration number 1,662,205 registered on October 29, 1991, for kitchen appliances such as dishwashing machines and refrigerators and freezers.

The Domain Name was registered on June 15, 2021. The Domain Name resolves to a website offering pay-
per-click advertisements unrelated to any dictionary meaning of the Domain Name but that make direct
reference to the Complaint and its MONOGRAM appliances (e.g. “GE Monogram Appliances” and

“Ge Appliance Parts”).

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 Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

a)	It is the owner of the MONOGRAM Mark, having registered the MONOGRAM Mark in various jurisdictions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MONOGRAM Mark as it reproduces the MONOGRAM Mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive word “appliances”.
b)	There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the MONOGRAM Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the MONOGRAM Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Instead, the Domain Name resolves to a payperclick site.
c)	The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name is being used for a payperclick site for which the Respondent is likely to receive revenue.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings
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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “appliances”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

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 Domain Name. 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made
demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by
the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

page 4

- The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in
the Domain Name.

The use of the Domain Name for a parking page with payperclick links unrelated to a dictionary meaning of the Domain Name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommerical or fair use.

The Panel notes the statements in the WIPO Overview 3.0 on the question of whether “parked” pages
comprising payperclick links support the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.9 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0 notes that:

“Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC [payperclick] links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.

Panels have recognized that the use of a domain name to host a page comprising PPC links would be permissible – and therefore consistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP – where the domain name consists of an actual dictionary word(s) or phrase and is used to host PPC links genuinely related to the dictionary meaning of the word(s) or phrase comprising the domain name, and not to trade off the complainant’s (or its competitor’s) trademark.”

In the present case, the Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar Domain Name to host a parking page with pay-per-click links unconnected to any dictionary meaning of the Domain Name (and that directly refer to the Complainant and its MONOGRAM line of appliances, absent any further explanation, do not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Based on the available 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 Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the

Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Domain Name, which wholly incorporates the MONOGRAM Mark and adds the descriptive term
“appliances”, resolves to a page offering pay-per-click links for which the Respondent most likely receives
some commercial gain. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible explanation
for the registration of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the
Complainant at the time of registration and is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the MONOGRAM

Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 Domain Name <monogramappliances.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nicholas Smith/
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2025