Art-tuv.com

The timeline behind art-tuv.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TÜV Nord AG v. Anwar Ahmed Anwar, Nazraeg Case No. D2025-4026 1. The Parties The Complainant is TÜV Nord AG, Germany, internally represented. The Respondent is Anwar Ahmed Anwar, Nazraeg, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <art-tuv.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 2, 2025. On October 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 3, 2025, 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 (Domain Admin) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 3, 2025, 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 October 7, 2025. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 28, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on October 8, 2025. Later on October 8, 2025, the Respondent submitted a further email by way of clarification of the Response. page 2 The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 2025. 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. Background The Complainant is one of a group of companies which are the successors in title to a business founded in Germany for the inspection of steam engines and boilers in the 1860s. The precise relationship of the various companies is not clear from the Complaint. It appears from the Complaint, however, that the different companies trade around the world. The Complaint includes survey evidence that the Complainant itself is very well-known in the European Union. The Complainant's website at “www.tuv-nord.com” lists a large number of countries around the world where it has business, including both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 1 The website describes the Complainant as “your global partner for testing, certification, training and inspection services.“ The Complaint includes evidence that the Complainant owns four registered trademarks for TÜV; (1) German Registered Trademark No 1005638, which was filed on October 29, 1979 and entered on the Register on July 28, 1980 in respect of services in International Classes 41 and 42; (2) European Union Registered Trademark No 005825781, which was filed on March 29, 2007 and entered on the Register on June 19, 2008 in respect of a wide range of goods and services in International Classes 1 to 45; and (3) Saudi Arabia Registered Trademarks Nos 1421107805 and 142110806, which were both registered on June 22, 2003 in respect of services in, respectively, International Classes 41 and 42. According to the Whois report, the disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2025. It resolves to a website at “www.fanalmuayana.com” headed “Artuv”. The website is in Arabic. The Respondent says it is promoting the testing and verification services which his company provides. “Artuv” is presented in a “fancy” form with the letter “A” in stylized form and a green “tick” coming out of its center, the letters “Art” are in blue (although the left “leg” of the letter “A” also has a parallel green shadow) and the letters “uv” are also in green. Upon being informed of the Complainant's concerns, according to the Response, the Respondent says he amended the website to remove potentially confusing elements and also registered a new domain name based on “fan” instead of “art” to avoid any possible misunderstanding, to which the disputed domain name now resolves. 5. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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. 1 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.8. page 3 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has proven ownership of several registered trademarks for TÜV. The comparison of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's trademark simply requires a visual and aural comparison of the disputed domain name to the proven trademarks. This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trademark law. Therefore, questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the geographical location of the respective parties, the date they were acquired and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage. Such matters, if relevant, may fall for consideration under the other elements of the Policy. See e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. In undertaking that comparison, it is permissible in the present circumstances to disregard the generic Top- Level-Domain (gTLD) component as a functional aspect of the domain name system. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark prefaced by the term “art” and a hyphen. As this requirement under the Policy is essentially a standing requirement, the addition of this term does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Apart from anything else, the Complainant’s trademark remains visually and aurally recognisable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) 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 trademark 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 trademark or service mark at issue. page 4 These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a Respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the Complainant, panels have recognized that proving a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the Respondent. As such, where a Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. There is no dispute between the Parties that: (1) The Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant began using the trademark and also after the Complainant had registered its trademark; (2) The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; (3) The Complainant has not otherwise authorised the Respondent to use the disputed domain name; (4) The disputed domain name is not derived from the Respondent's name. These factors are usually sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. The Respondent points out that the Complainant’s trademark is an abbreviation derived from the German “Testen und Verifizieren”. The Respondent says that the disputed domain name is derived from his company name which in a translation from the Arabic is “Art of Inspection and Testing”. According to the Respondent, “art” in this context is the literal translation of the Arabic word “فن,” which stands for skill, craftsmanship and creativity. Further, the word “fan” in the domain name to which the disputed domain name now resolves is said to be the transliteration of the Arabic “فن,” word which translates into English as “art”. The Respondent denies knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark when adopting his company name and registering the disputed domain name. It is possible that a company name can provide a basis for a finding of rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The adoption and use of the company name, however, must be in good faith otherwise it would be too easy to circumvent the Policy by the expedient of simply incorporating a company. There is no evidence before the Panel of when (or even if) the Respondent incorporated the company. Further, there is no explanation from the Respondent why he chose the acronym “Tüv” (that is, the German acronym) for the disputed domain name rather than whatever the initials might be in Arabic. Certainly, “Tüv” is not an acronym of the English expression. This is important as the Respondent appears to be located in Egypt and the Respondent’s business is apparently directed to an Arabic speaking audience. Further still, the disputed domain name is a mix of English – “art” – and an acronym for a German expression. Yet still further, while “artuv” may be an elision of “art” and “tuv”, the Respondent has not explained why he registered the disputed domain name and not a name based on the elided form. page 5 In these circumstances having regard to the Complainant’s long use (since around 1979) and the wide geographical scope of that use and notwithstanding the Respondent’s denial, it appears likely that the Respondent adopted the disputed domain name because of its close resemblance to the Complainant’s trademark and so to take advantage of the reputation of that trademark. The adoption and use of the disputed domain name in those circumstances does not qualify as a good faith use or offering of goods or services under the Policy. Nor can the company name be considered to be in good faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy also. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. These are conjunctive requirements; both must be satisfied for a successful Complaint: see e.g., Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto WIPO Case No. D2017-0183. Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the Respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the Complainant. For the reasons given in Section 5B, the Panel considers it very likely that the Respondent had such knowledge in this case. Further, for the same reasons, the Panel also finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and, given it is being used for the very services offered by the Complainant under its trademark, the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith under the Policy. Accordingly, the Complainant has established all three requirements under 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 <art-tuv.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Warwick A. Rothnie/ Warwick A. Rothnie Sole Panelist Date: October 28, 2025

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