Sennheiser electronic GmbH & Co. KG v.
Claim Number: FA2112001977427
Complainant: Sennheiser electronic GmbH & Co. KG of Wedemark, Germany.
Complainant Representative: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG of Munich, Germany.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 17, 2021
Commencement: December 21, 2021
Default Date: January 5, 2022
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <sennheiser-sales.shop>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <sennheiser-sales.shop> on November 19, 2021 and operates the website as a sales platform selling products claimed to be produced by Complainant.
Complainant, SENNHEISER, is the owner of trademark Sennheiser, amongst other trademarks, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since at least 1996. The Complainant has operated as the Sennheiser brand for over a half century.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is a well established mark, in use for over sixty years with international use and recognition as an electronics brand.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name. Further the Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is neither an authorized reseller of its products nor does its pricing comport with Complainant’s products pricing.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that the following factors when taken together stand as sufficient evidence of bad faith:
- Respondent’s offering of Complainant’s products without being an authorized reseller and at prices well below the market suggesting they might be counterfeit products.
- The domain and the website marketing of Complainant’s products and logo gives an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and would cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship. (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856)
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: January 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page