WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Siemens AG v. Hello Greatness

Case No. D2020-1641

1. The Parties

Complainant is Siemens AG, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Germany.

Respondent is Hello Greatness, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <siemens-healtlhneers.com> which is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 23, 2020. On June 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 24, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from those in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 24, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 24, 2020.¹

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 19, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 21, 2020.

The Center appointed Gerardo Saavedra as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 2020. This Panel finds that it was properly constituted. This 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

Complainant is engaged in the fields of medicine, automation and control, power, transportation, logistics, information and communications, among others.

Complainant has rights over (i) the SIEMENS and design mark for which it holds International registration No. 637074, registered on March 31, 1995, in classes 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, and 42; and (ii) the SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS and design mark for which it holds registration No. 15400849 with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, registered on November 21, 2018, in classes 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, and 44 (the “Marks”).

Complainant’s affiliate, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, has rights over the HEALTHINEERS mark for which it holds International registration No. 1320512, registered on March 10, 2016, in classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, and 44, and is the registrant of the domain names <siemens-healthineer.com> and <siemens-healthineers.com>, both created on March 15, 2016.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 11, 2020. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website since it returned an error message showing, among others, “Die Website ist nicht erreichbar Die Server-IP-Adresse von siemens-healtlhneers.com wurde nicht gefunden”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s assertions may be summarized as follows.

Complainant, with headquarters in Berlin and Munich, Germany, was founded more than 150 years ago and is one of the world’s largest companies providing innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to benefit customers in 190 countries.

The mark SIEMENS is famous and is one of the best-known trademarks in the world. By virtue of Complainant’s long use and the renown of Complainant’s SIEMENS mark, the Marks are exclusively associated with Complainant. Complainant uses the Marks in relation to medical services, equipment and solutions.

Complainant already owns and uses for business purposes various domain names consisting of the sign “Siemens”, such as <siemens.com>, <siemens.eu>, <siemens.de>, <siemens-healthineers.com>, and <siemens-healthineer.com>.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks, and to the HEALTHINEERS mark.

The disputed domain name contains the SIEMENS mark in an identical form as well as the element “healtlhneers” which is confusingly similar to the term “healthineers”. The misspelling of “healtlhneers” is a typical case of typo-squatting since it misplaces the letter “h” and uses the letter “l” instead of the letter “i” which comes visually very close to the letter “i”.

Due to the high reputation of the SIEMENS mark, the public will automatically recognize the Marks and will associate the disputed domain name with Complainant thinking that the disputed domain name and the corresponding website belong to Complainant. Further, the domain names <siemens-healthineers.com> and <siemens-healthineer.com> are visually almost identical to the disputed domain name.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant does not have any connection with Respondent. Respondent is not and has never been one of Complainant’s representatives, employees or licensees, nor is otherwise authorized to use the Marks or the HEALTHINEERS mark.

In view of the long and extensive use of the SIEMENS mark throughout the world since decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, it is obvious that Respondent is well aware of that mark, whose status of reputation has been assessed in various UDRP cases.

Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is currently not in use and it connects to no active website since it displays the legend “Die Website ist nicht erreichbar” (“The website is not available”). Respondent cannot make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and there is nothing to suggest that Respondent would not aim at misleadingly divert consumers and Internet users searching for Complainant’s website, who may mistype Complainant’s SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS mark, to other sites.

The disputed domain name has to be regarded as registered and used in bad faith.

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as Respondent knew or should have known about Complainant’s earlier rights on the Marks. In deliberately registering the disputed domain name, Respondent intended to use the strong reputation throughout the world of the Marks in order to confuse the public and to cause damage to Complainant in disrupting its business.

The disputed domain name was registered because of its similarity to Complainant’s Marks and with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the goodwill of Complainant in order to divert Internet traffic intended for Complainant away to Respondent’s potential website or email address.

Even though the disputed domain name currently shows no content, the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith. Since the disputed domain name contains the well-known SIEMENS mark, any unauthorized use of the disputed domain name may result in bad faith.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint 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”.

The lack of response from Respondent does not automatically result in a favorable decision for Complainant.² The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the Marks.

Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (i.e. “.com”) after a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. Further, it is also well explored that a domain name can only consist of an alphanumeric string, and cannot incorporate figurative or device elements of a mark (see Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Mike Gorman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0699; and Espire Infolabs Pvt. Ltd. v. TW Telecom, WIPO Case No. D2010-1092).

Taking into account the aforesaid, it is clear that the disputed domain name identically reproduces the SIEMENS mark, and almost identically the SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS mark, as noted in the Complaint. This Panel considers that the Marks are recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the minor variations in the term “healtlhneers” in the disputed domain name do not avoid its confusing similarity with said Marks (see sections 1.7 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Thus, this Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has alleged and Respondent has failed to deny that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Complainant contends that it has no relationship with Respondent, that Respondent is not authorized to use the Marks or the HEALTHINEERS mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The evidence in the file shows that Complainant’s affiliate, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, appears as the registrant of the domain names <siemens-healthineer.com> and <siemens-healthineers.com> and that the latter resolves to an active website which features the activities of such entity. The disputed domain name is highly similar to said domain names. The evidence also shows that the disputed domain name may be deemed inactive since there appears to be no active website associated with it. However, it seems to this Panel that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

This Panel considers that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Intocast AG v. Lee Daeyoon, WIPO Case No. D2000-1467, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In the file there is no evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or of any other circumstances giving rise to a possible right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by Respondent.

Based on the aforesaid, this Panel concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, which Respondent chose not to rebut.

Taking into consideration Complainant’s international presence, that the registration of the Marks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name, and that Complainant’s SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS and design mark is composed of two words which confers to it certain distinctiveness, this Panel is of the view that Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Marks at the time it obtained the registration of the disputed domain name.

The evidence supplied by Complainant shows that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The concept of a domain name “being used in bad faith” is not limited to a domain name with an active website on the Internet (see “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0246, and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In the case at hand, Respondent’s bad faith may be deduced from the following facts: (i) the disputed domain name incorporates the nominative elements of Complainant’s SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS mark coupled with just minor typographical error variations, practice commonly known as “typosquatting” and which has been deemed as a strong indicative of bad faith under a number of UDRP cases;³ (ii) Complainant and its affiliate, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, are well-established companies; (iii) Respondent is using Complainant’s Marks in the disputed domain name without Complainant’s authorization; (iv) the substantial similarity of the disputed domain name with the domain names <siemens-healthineer.com> and <siemens-healthineers.com> which belong to Complainant’s affiliate mentioned above; (v) the lack of any basis in the file to conceive a legitimate use of the disputed domain name by Respondent;⁴ (vi) Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide its name and contact details; and (vii) Respondent’s failure to appear at this proceeding.

In sum, the overall evidence indicates that Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was deliberate for its substantial similarity with, and with the likely intention to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of, Complainant’s Marks, which denotes bad faith.⁵

In light of the above, this Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, this Panel orders that the disputed domain name <siemens-healtlhneers.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2020.

¹ The original Complaint was filed against “Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247443372”, which appeared as registrant in the corresponding WhoIs report. The amended Complaint was filed against Respondent, as per the information disclosed by the Registrar.