(zhuo yang gang tie shang hai you xian gong si)

WIPO Case No. D2023-0169

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

thyssenkrupp AG v. 郭经理 (guo jing li), 卓阳钢铁(上海)有限公司

(zhuo yang gang tie shang hai you xian gong si)

Case No. D2023-0169

1. The Parties

The Complainant is thyssenkrupp AG, Germany, represented internally.

The Respondent is 郭经理 (guo jing li), 卓阳钢铁(上海）有限公司 (zhuo yang gang tie shang hai you xian

gong si), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <thyssenkrupp-metal-services.com> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing

Ltd. d/b/a HiChina ( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January

13, 2023. On January 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 23, 2023, 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 in English on January 30, 2023.

On January 23, 2023, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On January 27, 2023, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the

proceeding.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on January 31, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2023. The Respondent did not submit

any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 21, 2023.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on March 1, 2023. 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

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company headquartered in Germany and one of the world’s largest diversified steel producers, operating since 1999 under the trade mark THYSSENKRUPP (the “Trade Mark”), following the

merger of the German companies Thyssen AG and Krupp, both founded in the 19th century.

The Complainant is the owner of registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including

International registration No. 731636 (with designation including China), registered on July 7, 1999.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2022.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to an English language “phishing” website, which impersonates an

official or authorised website of the Complainant, featuring prominently the Trade Mark, products, corporate

livery and corporate imagery of the Complainant (the “Website”).

The disputed domain name has also been used by the Respondent to send fraudulent English language

phishing email to the Complainant’s customers.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name 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.

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burden being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third

Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English, for several reasons,

including the fact the Respondent has sent English language phishing email to the Complainant’s customers.

The Respondent did not make any submissions regarding the language of the proceeding, and did not file
any response in either Chinese or English, after the Respondent had been duly notified in both Chinese and
English of the language of the proceeding, and the Complaint.

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.

In light of the English language content of the Website and of the Respondent’s phishing email, the Panel

finds there is sufficient evidence in support of the conclusion that the Respondent is conversant in English.

The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2. Substantive Elements of the Policy

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7), followed by the words “metal” and “services”, separated by hyphens.

Where a relevant trade mark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

1. before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or 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; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is 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 trade mark or service mark at
issue.

The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden

is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used fraudulently in respect of the

Website and in order to send phishing email to the Complainant’s customers.

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

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima

facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel

therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain name highlighted in section 6.2.B above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 <thyssenkrupp-metal-services.com> be transferred to the

Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/

Sebastian M.W. Hughes

Sole Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2023