Gea-industrialsolutions.com

The timeline behind gea-industrialsolutions.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 GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Firat Ceran, Firat Ceran Case No. D2026-0625 1. The Parties The Complainant is GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft, Germany, represented by Schneiders & Behrendt Rechts- und Patentanwälte, Germany. The Respondent is Firat Ceran, FIRAT CERAN, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <gea-industrialsolutions.com> is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 2026, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 23, 2026, 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 March 11, 2026. On February 23, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Turkish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Turkish. On February 27, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on March 3, 2026 and March 12, 2026. The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2026. 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 is a company headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany. As described in the Complaint, the Complainant is one of the world’s largest suppliers of equipment and technology solutions for the food processing industry and other process industries, with 18,000 employees and annual revenues exceeding EUR 5.4 billion. The Complainant has local presences in many countries, including Türkiye, where the Respondent is based. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks incorporating the term “GEA”: - The European Union registration No. 013911433 for GEA registered on February 7, 2018 - The European Union registration No. 006904684 for GEA (fig.), registered on January 22, 2009 - The European Union registration No. 000224782 for GEA registered on December 7, 1998 - Turkish registration No. 2007 04170 for GEA GROUP, registered on February 6, 2008; and - Turkish registration No. 2017 51037 for GEA, registered on November 29, 2018; and The Complainant has registered and uses a variety of “gea” based domain names, including <gea.com> and <gea.com.tr> for its corporate websites, which feature a variety of languages including Turkish. Additionally, the Complainant has established three subsidiaries in a Turkish city, where the Respondent is located. The disputed domain name was registered on October 18, 2022. The Complainant provided evidence of the website connected to the disputed domain name. The Panel visited the website connected to the disputed domain name on April 15, 2026, and determined that the disputed domain name still resolves to the same active website presented in the German language, which appeared to promote engineering and industrial solutions. In particular, the website contained references to industrial sectors such as cement industry, shipbuilding and energy, mining, and machinery industry, thereby conveying the overall impression of a commercial website offering technical and industrial goods and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: -The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. -The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. page 3 -The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions, having only sent email communications on March 3, 2026 and March 12, 2026, stating that the disputed domain name had been registered in the name of a third party. In these e-mails, the Respondent stated that he had no connection with the matter, that he had only assisted in the making of the website following a request through “natro.com”. 6. Discussion and Findings Respondent Identity The Respondent’s informal communications suggest that the Respondent is not the beneficial holder of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that paragraph 1 of the Rules defines “Respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated” and that the appointed panel retains discretion to determine the respondent against which the case should proceed. Considering the circumstances of this proceeding, in particular, the silence of the beneficial holder, the Panel finds in the present case there is no evidence on the existence and nature of any relationship between the listed registrant and the beneficial holder which would allow the Panel to consider that the beneficial holder should be treated as a further Respondent. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that “Firat Ceran” is the Respondent in this proceeding. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Turkish. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that Complainant has no knowledge of Turkish and that filing a translation of the Complaint would be time and costs intensive. Additionally, the Complaint stated that neither Party is a native English speaker, the Complainant and its counsel are German, while the Respondent is Turkish. In that sense, English operates as a neutral language between the Parties. Moreover, the Complainant stated that the disputed domain name itself incorporates the English term “industrialsolutions”, and the record indicates that English is also used in connection with the Respondent’s website, which supports the conclusion that the Respondent is not unfamiliar with English. The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s request for the language of the proceeding be English but sent email communications in Turkish stating that it does not speak English. Noting also the Panel’s findings above in relation to the Respondent’s identity, and the Respondent’s own statement indicating that it has no interest in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Turkish would contradict with the aim of conducting the proceedings with due expedition. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the page 4 proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “industrial solutions” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. It is also well accepted that a Top Level Domain, in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied with the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In this regard, several circumstances support the Complainant’s prima facie showing: - There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The underlying registrant information identifies the registrant as “Fırat Ceran”, which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. page 5 - The Respondent has neither acquired nor applied for any trademark corresponding to “GEA INDUSTRIAL SOLUTION” or any variation thereof. - The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and has no affiliation, authorization, or relationship with the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights in the GEA trademark long predate both the registration of the disputed domain name and the incorporation of the alleged third-party company. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the Complainant’s GEA trademark is protected and well established in Türkiye, where the Respondent is located, and in Germany, which appears to be the market targeted by the Respondent’s German-language website, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, such awareness is inconsistent with any claim to bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and rather supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name was deliberately chosen with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s rights in the GEA trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel considers the Complainant’s prior rights, and its established presence in the industrial and engineering sectors. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the term “industrialsolutions”, a descriptive expression closely related to the Complainant’s field of activity. In addition, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a German-language website offering engineering and industrial solutions reinforces the inference that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind and was targeting the Complainant and its business when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Respondent has not filed an official Response and hence has not availed itself of the opportunity to present any case of good faith that it might have. The Panel infers that none exists. Regal Funds Management Pty Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / John Clerk, WIPO Case No. D2020-2773. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. page 6 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 <gea-industrialsolutions.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gökhan Gökçe/ Gökhan Gökçe Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2026

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