Siemens.link

The timeline behind siemens.link

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION SIEMENS AG v. Chris Akehurst Case No. D2015-0234 1. The Parties The Complainant is SIEMENS AG of Munich, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke, Germany. The Respondent is Chris Akehurst of Yorkshire, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("UK"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <siemens.link> is registered with eNom (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 13, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 2015, 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 February 23, 2015, 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 February 23, 2015. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 24, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Notification of Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on March 25, 2015. The Center appointed Mr. Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2015. 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 The Complainant has rights in the registered trademark SIEMENS. This mark is registered in many countries around the world and it is well known. The disputed domain name was registered in 2015, well after the Complainant registered its mark. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its mark. The Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for an amount well above out-of-pocket costs. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of the Complainant. The said web side includes the following statement: "Offshore Wind Services are very proud to say that we work alongside Siemens on numerous products." But the Complainant does not in fact collaborate with that company. 5. Parties'' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it owns numerous registered trademarks, in some 70 countries, for the name SIEMENS and that the mark is amongst the best known trademarks in the world. The Complainant is one of the world's largest electrical engineering and electronics companies, operating around the world. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. Due to its reputation, the public will automatically recognize the mark SIEMENS, and Internet users will have the false impression that the web site at the disputed domain name is an official website of the Complainant or of one of the Complainant's business partners. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not and has never been one of the Complainant's representatives, employees or one of its licensees, nor is he otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's mark. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name automatically redirects the public to a website that presents the services of a company in the UK named Offshore Wind Services. The web site states "Offshore Wind Services are very proud to say that we work alongside Siemens on numerous products." But, says the Complainant, that is not correct; it has never collaborated with said company. The Complainant states that the Respondent sent it an e-mail offering to sell the disputed domain name to the highest bidder and inviting it to make an offer to buy the domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent intended to use the strong reputation throughout the world of the Complainant's mark in order to mislead the public and disrupt the Complainant's business: the disputed domain name resolves to a web site offering services in the field of wind energy in relation to offshore farms, which is one of the Complainant's core businesses. Thus the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent On February 20, 2015 the Respondent submitted a brief email communication stating, inter alia , "[c]an you not just pass the domain across to siemens.com??" On February 23 and 25, 2015, the Respondent reiterated his willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Other than these three communications, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable". In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to Complainant. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel recognizes the common request, and finds it unnecessary in the circumstances to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the three requisite elements of the Policy. A similar conclusion was reached by the panel in Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207 ; and in John Bowers QC v. Tom Keogan , WIPO Case No. D2008-1720 . A. Identical or Confusingly Similar For the reasons indicated above, the Panel need not consider this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests For the reasons indicated above, the Panel need not consider this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the reasons indicated above, the Panel need not consider this 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 <siemens.link> be transferred to the Complainant. Richard Hill Sole Panelist Date: April 10, 2015

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.