DECISION

 

Linde plc and Linde GmbH v. Carmine Peters / Linde

Claim Number: FA2502002139051

PARTIES

Complainants are Linde plc and Linde GmbH ("Complainants"), represented by Jonathan S. Jennings of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Carmine Peters / Linde ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <linde-online.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025. Forum received payment on February 6, 2025.

 

On February 7, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <linde-online.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@linde-online.com. Also on February 13, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 6, 2025, pursuant to Complainants' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainants request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint."  Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

Complainants in this administrative proceeding are Linde plc, organized under the laws of Ireland as a public limited company, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Linde GmbH, registered in Germany as a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH).

 

The Panel accepts that the parent/subsidiary relationship between Complainants and their history of use of the LINDE trademark constitutes a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the <linde-online.com> domain name listed in the Complaint.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainants

Complainants use the LINDE trademark and service mark in connection with a wide variety of industrial gases, engineering products and related services. The LINDE mark is the subject of numerous registrations in the United States and other countries worldwide, owned by Complainant Linde GmbH, which also registered the domain name <linde.com> in July 1997.

 

The <linde-online.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LINDE mark. Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith in furtherance of a phishing scheme aimed at deceiving and defrauding attorneys in the United States. Specifically, Respondent uses the email address "mattwhite@linde-online.com" to impersonate Matt White, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Linde Plc, as well as the company itself.

 

The phishing scheme follows a consistent pattern. Respondent begins by exchanging emails with the victim attorney, using one that incorporates the <linde-online.com> domain name to impersonate Matt White on behalf of Linde and to falsely seek legal representation for a breach of contract dispute. It then requests the attorney's standard retainer agreement, expressing willingness to sign and promising an upfront payment. Next, Respondent claims the opposing party will send a check to the attorney as part of a settlement, from which the attorney's retainer fee can be deducted. Although the check appears legitimate, it is fraudulent. Respondent subsequently instructs the attorney to wire the remaining settlement funds to them. Once the attorney complies, the wired funds are irretrievably lost because the fake check never clears.

 

As to legitimacy, Respondent is not generally known by the <linde-online.com> domain name, nor has it acquired any trade name, trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark. Aside from its use in the domain name and in the emails used to perpetuate its scam, Complainants have found no evidence of Respondent using the LINDE mark or name. Furthermore, Complainants can find no trademark or service mark registrations for LINDE owned by Respondent. Respondent is not identified publicly in the registration information in the Whois database listings for the domain name. Respondent is neither affiliated with Linde Plc nor related in any way to its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Matt White, and is not licensed or authorized to use the LINDE mark or name. Respondent also has no rights in the LINDE mark. Respondent falsely claims to be Linde by impersonating its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Matt White, and through its use of the <linde-online.com> domain name.

 

As to bad faith, Respondent's phishing scheme, designed to impersonate Linde Plc and its officer for financial gain, establishes that Respondent deliberately selected the LINDE mark for exploitation prior to registering the domain name. Respondent's fraudulent scheme, carried out through email communications incorporating the domain name and false representations about Complainant's officer, demonstrates bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In addition, Respondent used the domain name to exploit the well-known LINDE mark, along with its goodwill and reputation, thereby demonstrating use in bad faith. Finally, Respondent claims to be associated with Linde, as evidenced by its registered name, but a review of Complainants' employee records reveals that no employee by the name of "Carmine Peters" has ever worked for Complainants.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainants have established all the elements entitling them to relief.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 that Complainants must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(i)        the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights; and

(ii)        Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainants' undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. However, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ('Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint').

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainants have shown that Complainant Linde GmbH has rights in the LINDE mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,667,681 registered on February 5, 2019).

 

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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <linde-online.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainants' LINDE mark, only differing by the addition of a hyphen and the word "online" which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <linde-online.com> domain name was registered on October 19, 2024, many years after the registration of Complainants' LINDE mark. In late October and in December 2024, emails were sent to attorneys from <mattwhite@linde-online.com>, purporting to be from the Vice President/Chief Financial Officer of Linde Plc, seeking to engage the law firms' legal services on behalf of that company.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <linde-online.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants' LINDE mark when Respondent registered the <linde-online.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant Linde Plc for the purpose of fraudulently phishing for money.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <linde-online.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Linde GmbH.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: March 8, 2025