teamtechnik Maschinen und Anlagen GmbH v. Edgar Bechtle / Ebechtle LLC
Claim Number: FA1512001652306
Complainant is teamtechnik Maschinen und Anlagen GmbH (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Müller of BPM legal, Germany. Respondent is Edgar Bechtle / Ebechtle LLC (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <team-technik.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.
David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 15, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 15, 2015.
On December 15, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <team-technik.us> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 16, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 2016 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@team-technik.us. Also on December 16, 2015, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 5, 2016.
An Additional Submission was timely received from Complainant on January 8, 2016. An Additional Submission was timely received from Respondent on January 13, 2016. A further Additional Submission was sent by Complainant to the Forum on January 14, 2016. This further submission is not provided for in the Rules and therefore was not considered.
On January 7, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the owner of the TEAMTECHNIK mark by way of its trademark registration with the Germany’s Patent and Trade Mark Office (“GPTMO”) (Reg. No. 39971839, registered July 28, 2000), which establishes Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the mark. Respondent’s <team-technik.us> is confusingly similar as it incorporates the mark entirely and merely adds a hyphen and the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <team-technik.us> domain name. Respondent, while a former employee, never received license or authorization to use the TEAMTECHNIK mark in connection with domain registrations. Respondent is also not commonly known by the <team-technik.us> domain. Further, while the website has been used by Respondent in connection with a parking website, from which Respondent presumably gains click-through fees, there has been no bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has also offered the <team-technik.us> for sale to Complainant for USD 20,000.00.
Respondent has registered or has used the <team-technik.us> domain name in bad faith. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), Respondent’s USD 20,000.00 offer for sale constitutes valuable consideration well in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Next, Respondent is a former employee and registered the disputed domain and subsequently parked it in order to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). As a result of the domain’s parking, Respondent presumably commercially profits from click-through fees associated with included hyperlinks, conduct proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Last, due to Respondent’s previous association with Complainant as a former employee, actual knowledge of the TEAMTECHNIK mark is evident and therefore, Respondent’s registration of the <team-technik.us> domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent has added hyphenation to change the meaning conjured by the two distinct terms of the domain: “team” and “technik.” Respondent is the owner of the corresponding company “Team-Technik LLC” (Registered in the State of Georgia, USA).
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed <team-technik.us> domain name. Respondent is commonly known by “Team-Technik LLC” and is a US-based LLC, thereby assigning it rights per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not competing with Complainant through its use of the <team-technik.us> domain or any other website belonging to Respondent.
Respondent has neither registered nor used the <team-technik.us> domain in bad faith. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), Complainant was the party who made the initial offer to purchase the disputed domain from Respondent. Respondent’s counteroffer of USD 20,000.00 was based on various aspects of the financial impact to Respondent which would stem from a sale. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), Complainant has not provided any evidence to show Respondent has disrupted its business in any manner.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Supplemental Response, Complainant indicates that Respondent did not register a company with the disputed domain name until December 16, 2015. In Respondent’s Additional Submission, Respondent indicates that it reserved the company name Team-Technik LLC with the state of Georgia on November 3, 2015. Respondent also acknowledges that the disputed domain name was registered on October 19, 2010.
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 Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
Complainant claims to be the owner of the TEAMTECHNIK mark by way of its trademark registration with GPTMO (Reg. No. 39971839, registered July 28, 2000), and asserts Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the mark. Panels have found a trademark registration with a governmental authority sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark, even where parties in a dispute operate in different countries. See Zweibruder Stahlwarenkontor GmbH LLC v. Jinhody Technology Co. Ltd. / Mr. Wu, FA 1431390 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2012) (concluding that Complainant’s registrations with the GPTMO for its LED-LENSER mark were sufficient under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1579014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 8, 2014) (finding that although Respondent resides in Australia, it is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as Complainant need not register its mark in the country where Respondent resides). Therefore, this Panel finds that Complainant holds a valid trademark registration for the TEAMTECHNIK mark.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <team-technik.us> is confusingly similar as it incorporates the mark entirely and merely adds a hyphen. Panels have found no difficulty in making confusing similarity determinations in light of de minimis changes to a mark. See Allstate Insurance Company v. Brian McFedries, FA 1601235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2015) (panel stating that “adding the hyphen to the domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). This Panel agrees with UDRP precedent and finds that Respondent’s alterations to the TEAMTECHNIK mark as reflected in the <team-technik.us> domain name do not overcome a finding of confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <team-technik.us> domain name. Complainant notes that Respondent, while a former employee, never received license or authorization from Complainant to use the TEAMTECHNIK mark in connection with domain registrations. Complainant also alleges that Respondent is also not commonly known by the <team-technik.us> domain.
Respondent did not reserve the Team-Technik LLC name with the state of Georgia until several years after it registered the domain name. To the extent Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name as of the date of domain registration, he cannot avail himself of the protection afforded by the Policy. See Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank, D2002-0672 (WIPO Nov. 20, 2002) (“for [this provision] of the Policy to apply, the respondent must have been ‘commonly known by the domain name’ as at the date of registration of the domain name”) quoting Rothschild Bank AG v. Rothchild Corporation, D2001-1112 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2002). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <team-technik.us> domain name under the Policy.
Further, Complainant argues that, while the website has been used by Respondent in connection with a parking website, from which Respondent presumably gains click-through fees, there has been no bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Panels have found domain parking to evince neither rights nor legitimate interests. See Vinidex Pty Ltd. v. Auinger, AF-0402 (eResolution Oct. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it did not resolve to a developed website and the respondent was a former employee of the complainant).
Accordingly, the Panel agrees that sufficient information exists that demonstrates Respondent has not elicited any rights or legitimate interests in the <team-technik.us> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is a former employee and clearly registered the disputed domain and subsequently parked it in order to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel agrees that Respondent has parked the disputed domain name in opposition to Complainant in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that as a result of the domain’s parking, Respondent presumably commercially profits from click-through fees associated with included hyperlinks, conduct proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). This Panel agrees that the parking of this disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith attraction of Internet users for commercial gain, as proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Last, Complainant posits that, due to Respondent’s previous association with Complainant as a former employee, actual knowledge of the TEAMTECHNIK mark is evident and therefore, Respondent’s registration of the <team-technik.us> domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Given the past relationship between the parties, the Panel agrees that there is a sufficient basis to determine that Respondent had actual knowledge of the TEAMTECHNIK mark and Complainant’s rights therein.
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <team-technik.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page