Westmore · UDRP DecisionDornbracht-professional.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <dornbracht-professional.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered DORNBRACHT mark because it incorporated the mark in full and the addition of “professional” did not prevent confusing similarity. Complainant established a prima facie case that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which Respondent did not rebut. The Panel also found bad-faith registration and use based on Respondent’s evident knowledge of the longstanding faucet manufacturer and the use of the domain for PPC links mentioning competing products and leading to competitors’ websites.
The timeline behind dornbracht-professional.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward combination of full-mark incorporation, an added term that does not dispel confusing similarity, an unrebutted prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests, and targeted PPC use involving competitors. The competitive subject matter of the links was especially important because it supported both Respondent’s knowledge of the mark and commercial-gain use based on confusion.
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 Dornbracht AG & Co. KG v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo Case No. D2021-0691 1. The Parties Complainant is Dornbracht AG & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben PartG mbB, Germany. Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dornbracht-professional.com> is registered with NamePal.com #8007 Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2021. On March 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 2021, 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 Complainant on March 18, 2021 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 March 23, 2021. 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 March 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 2021. 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 Complainant was founded in 1950 and is a German manufacturer and distributor of high quality faucets for bathrooms and kitchen. Complainant owns, inter alia , the German trademark DORNBRACHT no. 2005619, registered on October 28, 1991, in International Classes 11 and 21 and the European Union Registration DORNBRACHT no. 000829572, registered on October 14, 1999 in International Classes 6, 9, 11, 20 and 21. Complainant also holds and uses the domain name <dornbracht.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links linked to further websites offering products of Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DORNBRACHT trademark in which Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the word “professional” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use this trademark. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it is obvious that Respondent had knowledge of both Complainant and its trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name since the content of the Internet page posted under the disputed domain name offers faucets manufactured by Complainant’s competitors. Moreover, the website posted under the disputed domain contains wording stating that the disputed domain name may be for sale. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the 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 The Panel is satisfied that Complainant owns a trademark registration for its DORNBRACHT trademark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the DORNBRACHT trademark. The addition of the word “professional” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 . For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark DORNBRACHT. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant states it has not authorized Respondent to use the trademark DORNBRACHT. The Panel does not see any contrary evidence from the record. In the view of the Panel, Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, Respondent failed to provide any explanations as to any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it is a longstanding manufacturer of faucets for bathrooms and kitchen. In the view of the Panel, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s trademark, noting the composition of the disputed domain name, and since it used it to offer PPC links to faucets and related products. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with links mentioning competing products and leading to websites of competitors of Claimant. The Panel therefore concludes that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of products or on its web site (paragraph 4 b (iv) of the Policy). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. 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 <dornbracht-professional.com> be transferred to Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: May 17, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around dornbracht-professional.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.