SAP SE v Vzdorov Maxim

WIPO Case No. D2025-1280

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SAP SE v. Vzdorov Maxim

Case No. D2025-1280

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SAP SE, Germany, represented by K & G Law LLC, United States of America (“United

States”).

The Respondent is Vzdorov Maxim, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sapjp.com> is registered with Betterthanaveragedomains.com LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 28, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 28, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on April 28, 2025, April 29, 2025, and May 6, 2025.

The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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

page 2

On April 28, 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Center affirming that he would not be interested in
the disputed domain name and the Center acknowledged its receipt, scheduling a deadline for the
Complainant set for May 5, 2025, in order to possibly submit a request for suspension of the proceedings
and explore settlement options; however, the Complainant did not file any suspension request and on May

6, 2025, the Center confirmed continuation of the present proceedings.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a well-known German company, market leader in end-to-end enterprise software applications, analytics, intelligent technologies and experience management.

The Complainant has been operating since 1972 with the SAP trademark and employs over 105,000 people worldwide, representing 160 nationalities.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for SAP, including:

- Japanese registration no. 4384018, dated May 19, 2000 and covering class 9;
- Japanese registration no. 4669881, dated May 9, 2003 and covering classes 9, 16, 41, 42;
- International Trademark no. 759060, dated April 18, 2001 and covering classes 9, 16, 41, 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 6, 2024, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it resolves to an inactive website. However, prior to the filing, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed the Complainant’s logo and other registered trademarks, including SAP S/4HANA Cloud, and featured a copyright notice stating “© SAP SE or an SAP affiliate company”.

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 name.

The Complainant affirms that the disputed domain name is identical or highly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SAP trademark, as it reproduces it in its entirety, with the mere addition of the letters “jp”, which would be a reference to Japan, a Country where the Complainant operates and has legitimate prior registered trademark rights.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant nor is it affiliated with
the Complainant in any way. The Complainant says that it has not authorized the Respondent to make any
use of its SAP trademark. Lastly, the Complainant says that there is no evidence to suggest that the
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, as intended under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the
Policy.

Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as - taking into account the worldwide fame of the Complainant’s SAP mark - there is no chance of the disputed domain name having been registered by the Respondent by simple coincidence. Furthermore, whilst the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, under the doctrine of passive holding the Respondent’s bad faith remains unchanged.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the
Complainant.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply within the deadline set by the Center, but later sent a few brief emails, affirming that he would not be interested in the disputed domain name. In any case, the Respondent did not reply at all in the merit of the Complainant’s contentions.

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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of its SAP trademark for the purposes of the Policy; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

As a technical requirement of registration, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), that is “.com” in the case of the disputed domain name, is usually disregarded when assessing confusing similarity.

The Complainant’s SAP mark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name and is clearly recognizable in it. In these circumstances, the addition of the letters “jp” (likely a reference to Japan) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

For the above reasons, based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s
trademark and the letters “jp” carries a risk of implied affiliation, taking also into account that the
Complainant’s trademark is also used and registered in Japan.

page 4

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent clearly had the SAP trademark in mind while
registering the disputed domain name, as the latter exactly reproduces it, with the mere addition of letters

“jp”.

There is no obvious reason, nor has the Respondent offered an explanation, for the Respondent to register a
domain name incorporating the distinctive SAP trademark with the addition of letters “jp”, unless there was
an intention to create a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the SAP trademark.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, not just in the registration of the domain name but using it for illegitimate purposes such as impersonation and a copycat website by displaying the Complainant’s logo and other registered trademarks, including SAP S/4HANA Cloud, and featuring a copyright notice stating “© SAP SE or an SAP affiliate company.”

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, use of a copycat website to impersonate the Complainant, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Regarding the current inactive use of the disputed domain name, the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

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 name <sapjp.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tommaso La Scala/
Tommaso La Scala
Sole Panelist
Date: May 27, 2025