Sennheiserca.com

The timeline behind sennheiserca.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 Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co. KG v. Berkeley Harvey, Harvey Berkeley Case No. D2026-0671 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Bettinger Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondent is Berkeley Harvey, Harvey Berkeley, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sennheiserca.com> is registered with CNOBIN Information Technology Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17, 2026. On February 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 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 February 26, 2026. 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 February 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 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 describes itself as a well-established independent family business that continuously sets trends in the audio industry with roots dating back to 1945. Today, it employs more than 2,800 employees in three different manufacturing plants in Germany, Ireland, and the United States of America. According to the Complainant’s documented allegations, it is the registered owner amongst others of the following verbal trademarks for SENNHEISER, e.g.,: - International trademark registration no. 670839, registered on March 6, 1997, for goods in class 9, designating, inter alia, Austria, the Benelux, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, and Switzerland; - European Union trademark registration no. 000370122, registered on August 27, 1999, for goods in classes 9, 10, and 16; - European Union trademark registration no. 001594308, registered on August 21, 2001, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 18, 21, 25, 28, 38, 41, and 42; The Complainant operates its official website at “www.sennheiser.com”. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 16, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to an online shop that presents itself as a SENNHEISER website and purports to offer SENNHEISER-branded products for sale. In particular, the Respondent’s website under the disputed domain name (i) prominently shows the Complainant’s SENNHEISER trademark in the header; (ii) provides product categories such as “Sennheiser Wireless systems,” “Sennheiser Microphones,” and “Sennheiser Accessories”; (iii) uses official-looking promotional imagery associated with SENNHEISER products and retail stores, and (iv) adopts the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, while offering products at implausibly low prices in CAD. 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: (1) The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s SENNHEISER mark in its entirety as the dominant and immediately recognizable element. The only additional element in the disputed domain name is the suffix “ca” which is commonly understood as the country code for Canada; and/or a widely used abbreviation for “Canada” in commercial contexts; (2) The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. In particular, the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the SENNHEISER trademark, whether in a domain name or otherwise. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently held that the operation of a fake online shop or an impersonation website designed page 3 to mislead consumers as to source or affiliation does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests, even where the website purports to sell the complainant’s genuine products; (3) It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark rights. The structure of the domain name demonstrates deliberate targeting. The overall presentation is designed to impersonate the Complainant and to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. There is no conceivable good- faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The disputed domain name is inherently misleading because it suggests an official Canadian website of the Complainant. B. Respondent 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 and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that each disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled: (i) each disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of each disputed domain name; and (iii) each disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will therefore proceed to analyse whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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 another element, here “ca”, may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 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 particular, the Respondent did not submit any evidence of bona fide pre-Complaint preparations to use the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. In particular, the Complainant’s uncontested allegations demonstrate that it has not authorized or licensed the Respondent’s use of the SENNHEISER trademark for registering the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name cannot constitute fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy since it consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second-level) and it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. In particular, the combination with certain geographic terms (e.g., <trademark-usa.com>, or <trademark.nyc>) are seen by UDRP-Panels as tending to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. This is the case in the present case: In fact, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety, combined with the element “ca,” which is commonly understood as the country code for Canada and/or a widely used commercial abbreviation for “Canada,” thereby reinforcing an apparent association with the Complainant’s activities in that market. This impression is further strengthened by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website that looks and feels like an official SENNHEISER online shop, prominently displays the Complainant’s trademark, reproduces the look and feel and content structure of the Complainant’s official website, and offers purported SENNHEISER-branded products at implausibly low prices in CAD. 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. 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 page 5 respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). This is the case here. In the present case, the Panel notes that according to the Complainant’s documented allegations the disputed domain name resolves to an active online shop that presents itself as an SENNHEISER website and purports to offer SENNHEISER branded products for sale. In particular, the Respondent’s website under the disputed domain name (i) prominently shows the Complainant’s SENNHEISER trademark in the header; (ii) provides product categories such as “Sennheiser Wireless systems,” “Sennheiser Microphones,” and “Sennheiser Accessories”; (iii) uses official-looking promotional imagery associated with Sennheiser products and retail stores, and (iv) adopts the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, while offering products at implausibly low prices in CAD. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain names included the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names and tries to pass itself off as the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 <sennheiserca.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Malte Müller/ Tobias Malte Müller Sole Panelist Date: April 8, 2026

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