Hafelekorea.com

The timeline behind hafelekorea.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 Häfele SE & Co KG v. zhang xiuhua Case No. D2026-1700 1. The Parties The Complainant is Häfele SE & Co KG, Germany, represented by Bettinger Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondent is zhang xiuhua, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hafelekorea.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2026. On April 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 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, User #15be8503 Privacy, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 27, 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 April 29, 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 May 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 1, 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 an enterprise headquartered in Germany, with roots dating back to its founding in 1923. It has been doing business in furniture fittings, architectural hardware, kitchen solutions, electronic access control systems, and lighting solutions. It employs more than 8,000 people worldwide and operates through a network of over 160 subsidiaries and sales offices in more than 150 countries. The Complainant has registered its HAFELE trademark, such as: - United States of America Registration No. 1210236 for HAFELE, registered on September 28, 1982, in classes 6 and 20; - European Union Trade Mark No. 000035881 for HÄFELE, registered on September 2, 1998, in classes 6, 8, and 20; and - European Union Trade Mark No. 1271233 for HÄFELE, registered September 9, 2015, in classes 9 and 11. The Complainant operates its official websites at the domain names, among others, <hafele.com>, <hafele.de> and <haefele.com>. Because of the umlaut in its name, the Complainant uses several spelling variations of its name when registering trademarks and domain names. The disputed domain name was registered on March 29, 2026. The Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to an online shop that purports to be affiliated with the Complainant and its subsidiaries. The website displays the Complainant’s HÄFELE trademark and purports to offer products identical or similar to those marketed by the Complainant. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. page 3 Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove 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. 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy, since it includes the Complainant’s HAFELE mark in its entirety. The addition of the geographical term “korea” in the disputed domain name does not prevent this finding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. In respect of the difference between the term “häfele” (or “haefele”) registered in some of the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names and the term “hafele” in the disputed domain name, in accordance with panel decisions, it has been held that an umlaut is of no significance in assessing the degree of similarity. See, for instance, Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Boer Romania Srl, WIPO Case No. DCH2014-0019, Tüv Nord AG v. surbeer kumar, WIPO Case No. DAE2022-0006 and Stichting BDO, v. Peter Huemerlehner, CHEMiTEC Process Automation GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2025-0217. 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 the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. page 4 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. 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 Complainant has since 1923 been doing business in furniture fittings, architectural hardware, kitchen solutions, electronic access control systems, and lighting solutions. The Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, given the longstanding reputation of both the Complainant and the trademark. The Respondent’s aim in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users for potential gain by taking unfair advantage of and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark. With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, the Panel notes the Respondent’s use of the website at the disputed domain name to host a website with the look and feel of the Complainant’s website to offer items for sale. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegitimate activity as impersonation of the Complainant constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Accordingly, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <hafelekorea.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2026

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