Wirtgen Group, Zweigniederlassung der John Deere GmbH & Co. KG, v daye liu

WIPO Case No. D2023-3782

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WIRTGEN GROUP, Zweigniederlassung der John Deere GmbH & Co. KG,
v. daye liu

Case No. D2023-3782

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WIRTGEN GROUP, Zweigniederlassung der John Deere GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Ruttensperger Lachnit Trossin Gomoll, Germany.

The Respondent is daye liu, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wirtgen-india.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2023. On September 12, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 13, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on

September 18, 2023.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the 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 September 21, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 11, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 2023. 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 Complainant is an internationally operating group of companies in the construction equipment industry. One of the subsidiaries of the Complainant is Wirtgen GmbH, established in 1961 by Reinhard Wirtgen.

The Complainant has production facilities in Germany, Brazil, China and India, employing more than 9,000 people.

The Complaint’s portfolio of trademarks by way of example includes:

- the International Trademark Registration (“IR”) No. 1298483 for the word mark WIRTGEN, registered on September 23, 2015 for variety of goods and services of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classif ication of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks (“Nice Classification”); and

- the IR No. 1299578 for the figurative trademark W, registered on July 27, 2015 for variety of goods and
services of the Nice Classif ication (hereinaf ter also referred to as trademarks).

The disputed domain name was registered on August 14, 2023 and resolved to a website that featured the Complainant’s trademarks and offered fake financial investment options. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

- the disputed domain name, which fully incorporates its WIRTGEN trademark is confusingly similar to it because the addition of the term “India” to the trademark in the disputed domain name is not suf f icient to distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the trademark;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

- the use of its trademarks on the website at the disputed domain name shows the Respondent’s awareness of its trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name as well as the Respondent’s intent to deceive consumers into believing that the website was operated or authorized by the Complainant.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred f rom the Respondent to the

Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that:

(i)        the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii)       the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IR No. 1298483 WIRTGEN. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. While the addition of other terms (in this case a dash followed by the country name “India”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst 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.

While 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 often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge 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. 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 record, the Panel finds that 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.

page 4

The Panel considers that the record of this case ref lects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has made
demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed
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
disputed 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 disputed 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; and

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the
disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant in any respect and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its WIRTGEN trademark in a domain name or otherwise.

The Respondent used the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users presumably looking for the Complainant through redirecting them to its own website which featured the Complainant’s trademarks and of fered fake financial investment options. UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware,

unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of f raud) can never confer

rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds 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.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 website or other on-line locations, 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 the Respondent’ website or location.

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent reproduced the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in the disputed domain name and used the Complainant’s trademarks on the website at the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent obviously had full knowledge of the Complainant’s business and trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and had registered it in order to target the Complainant and its trademark through impersonation or false association. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

The Complainant produced evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to perpetrate a financial scam. UDRP Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of f raud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

page 5

The fact that the offending use of the disputed domain name, that is to resolving to a f inancial scam website does not alter the fact that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Passive holding in relation to a domain name

registration can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established.

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, <wirtgen-india.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Zoltán Takács/
Zoltán Takács
Sole Panelist
Date: October 30, 2023