Krampgroup.com

The timeline behind krampgroup.com

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.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Kramp Groep B.V. v. Chen Xiansheng Case No. D2023-3029 1. The Parties Complainant is Kramp Groep B.V., Netherlands represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. Respondent is Chen Xiansheng, Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <krampgroup.com> is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2023. On July 14, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. A reminder was sent on July 26, 2023. On August 2, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation for the disputed domain name which differed from named Respondent (Domain Administrator, Admin of Kramgroup.com) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 2, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 4, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint, satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm 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 August 9, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 29, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on August 30, 2023. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a company based in the Netherlands. For at least a decade prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has of f ered services including the supply of agricultural parts and accessories under the mark KRAMP. Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations f or its KRAMP mark. These include, among others, International Registration No. 1223810 (registered May 16, 2014). Complainant also owns the registration for the domain name <kramp.com>, which Complainant uses to connect with prospective consumers online. The disputed domain name was registered on August 7, 2022. The disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website. Respondent nevertheless has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use Complainant’s marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. Specif ically, Complainant contends that it owns registrations f or the KRAMP mark, and under which Complainant offers services in various countries. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated the KRAMP mark into the disputed domain name with only the addition of the dictionary term “group” which is merely an English translation of Complainant’s trade name Kramp Groep. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad f aith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name f or Respondent’s own commercial gain, likely in order to conf use consumers seeking web-based inf ormation about Complainant and its goods and services. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel f inds that it is. The disputed domain name incorporates in f ull Complainant’s registered mark KRAMP, and adds the term “group,” which according to machine translate translates f rom English to Dutch as “groep”. Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that the addition of a term does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. The Panel theref ore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights f or purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel next considers whether Complainant has shown that Respondent has no “rights or legitimate interest,” as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. No evidence has been presented to the Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has no license f rom, or other af f iliation with, Complainant. Moreover, given the nature of the disputed domain name, the Panel f inds that such composition carries a risk of implied affiliation to Complainant, contrary to the f act, which cannot constitute f air use. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Theref ore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad f aith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website. It is nevertheless well established that having a passive website does not necessarily shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, which notes that the “no n-use of a domain name” does not necessarily negate a f inding of bad f aith. Rather, a panel must examine “the totality of the circumstances,” including, for example, whether a complainant has a well-known trademark, and whether a respondent conceals his/her identity and/or replies to the complaint. Respondent here did not formally respond to the Complaint. Respondent f urther provided an undeliverable physical address to the Registrar. Given Complainant’s multinational presence and the nature of the disputed domain name, the Panel f inds that Respondent was likely aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Theref ore, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad f aith f or purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <krampgroup.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: September 27, 2023

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