Lincoln Global, Inc., the Lincoln Electric Company v Tech Bro, ampthink

WIPO Case No. D2025-2821

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lincoln Global, Inc., The Lincoln Electric Company v. Tech Bro, ampthink

Case No. D2025-2821

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Lincoln Global, Inc. and The Lincoln Electric Company, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Tech Bro, ampthink, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <linclonielectric.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2025. On
July 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in
connection with the disputed domain name. On July 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (“Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on July 21, 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 July 25, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on August 18, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 Complainants, Lincoln Global, Inc., and The Lincoln Electric Company, are sister companies owned by Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., a leading manufacturer in the brazing and soldering alloys market currently operating 71 manufacturing and automation system integration locations across 21 countries.

The Lincoln Electric Group maintains a worldwide network of distributors and sales off ices with over 12,000 employees serving customers in over 160 countries, and reported sales of USD 4.2 billion in 2023. The Lincoln Electric Group also promotes its business online via the primary domain name <lincolnelectric.com>.

The Complainants have an extensive global portfolio of trade mark registrations incorporating the LINCOLN
ELECTRIC mark, including the following:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 004725941 for LINCOLN ELECTRIC in Classes 6, 9, 35, registered on November 27, 2006 by Lincoln Global, Inc.;

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 004982468 for LINCOLN ELECTRIC in Classes 6, 7, 9, 35, registered on January 15, 2008 by Lincoln Global, Inc.;

- United States of America Trade Mark Registration No. 2350082 for LINCOLN ELECTRIC in Class 9, registered on May 16, 2000 by The Lincoln Electric Company; and

- United States of America Trade Mark Registration No. 2420805 for LINCOLN ELECTRIC in Class 35, registered on January 16, 2001 by The Lincoln Electric Company.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2025. The evidence provided by the Complainants further indicates that prior to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per- click site, and subsequently resolved to an almost bank page with a message “DNS lookup failed”. At the time of issuance of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolved to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that they have satisf ied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ LINCOLN ELECTRIC trade marks, as the Respondent has merely transposed the fifth and sixth letters in the term “Lincoln” and inserted the letter “i” between this term and the term “electric”, and that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not af fect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade marks.

The Complainants assert that they have not authorized the Respondent to use the LINCOLN ELECTRIC mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or has undertaken any

page 3

demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been used to send f raudulent emails and to secure information related to wire transfer payments. The Respondent’s emails went so far as to include the Complainant’s address and telephone number as part of the email signature.

The Complainants also claim there is no evidence that the Respondent has any connection to the LINCOLN ELECTRIC mark, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name. The Complainants therefore argue that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Complainants

The Panel notes that the present Complaint has been f iled by multiple Complainants.

UDRP panels have articulated principles governing the question of whether a complaint f iled by multiple complainants may be brought against one respondent. These criteria encompass situations in which (i) the complainants either have a specif ic common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has af fected the complainants’ in a similar fashion; (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.

In order for the filing of a single complaint brought by multiple complainants to be accepted, the complaint would typically need to be accompanied by a request for consolidation which establishes that the relevant criteria have been met. In the present case, the Panel is satisfied that both Complainants have rights in the LINCOLN ELECTRIC mark as set out in the Factual Background heading above. The Panel notes that the Complainants assert that they have been the target of common conduct by the Respondent, and that as there is a common grievance on the part of each of them in a single disputed domain name, and given the almost identical facts, it would be procedurally efficient to deal with all matters in a consolidated proceeding.

The Panel f inds that the Complainants have established that they have a common grievance against the Respondent, which would affect their individual rights on substantially the same basis. The Respondent has not indicated that it would suffer any prejudice f rom consolidation of the complainants, and no potential prejudice is apparent to the Panel. The Respondent has not otherwise contested the request for

consolidation.

Accordingly, the Panel considers it procedurally efficient to allow the Complainants to proceed with the single

Complaint as f iled, and believes that consolidation is fair and equitable to all of the Parties.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainants have established rights in the LINCOLN ELECTRIC trade mark in multiple jurisdictions around the world. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

page 4

Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel finds the Complainants’ LINCOLN ELECTRIC mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the transposition of the letters “l” and “o” in the term “Lincoln”, and the insertion of the letter “i” between the terms “Lincoln” and “Electric”, which constitute a misspelling.

Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.9.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing their rights in the LINCOLN ELECTRIC trade mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a 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 of ten 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 satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

In this case, the Complainants assert that they have not authorized the Respondent to use their trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Meanwhile, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Respondent, prior to the notice of the dispute, had used or demonstrated its preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services.

There is also no evidence to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainants’ prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.

Further, the Complainant’s evidence shows that the disputed domain name has been used for sending f raudulent emails. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

page 5

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third and f inal element that a complainant must prove is that the respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of -pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided
that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the

purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. Other circumstances may also be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1).

For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the LINCOLN ELECTRIC trade marks were already widely known and directly associated with the Complainants’ activities. The Complainants’ registered trade mark rights in LINCOLN ELECTRIC for its products and services predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A simple online search for the term “lincoln electric” would have revealed that it is an established brand. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. Moreover, the disputed domain name involves typo-squatting by transposing the letters “l” and “o” in the term “Lincoln” while adding the letter “i” between the terms “Lincoln” and “electric”, indicating the Respondent’s ultimate intent to confuse unsuspecting Internet users as they may fail to notice the subtle dif ferences between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trade mark. Thus, the Respondent must have known of the Complainants’ marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaf f iliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

The disputed domain name has been used for sending fraudulent emails and seeking information related to wire transfer payments. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegitimate activity, here phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

page 6

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 name <linclonielectric.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

/Joseph Simone/
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: September 3, 2025