WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Xylem IP Management S.A.R.L. v. Evgeniya, IWT Case No. D2018-2055 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Xylem IP Management S.A.R.L. of Luxembourg, represented by Modiano & Partners, Switzerland.

The Respondent is Evgeniya, IWT of Kiev, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 7, 2018. On September 7, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 11, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 12, 2018 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 September 13, 2018.

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 September 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 12, 2018.

The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 2018. 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 owns numerous trademark registrations of the LOWARA trademark, such as an International trademark registration no. 833171, registered on July 12, 2004 and a European Union Trade Mark registration no. 001420736 registered on January 15, 2001. The Complainant uses the LOWARA trademark in connection with pumps, drives and packaged solutions like pressure booster sets and wastewater lifting stations.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 2, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a website, which appears to sell Lowara pumps in Ukraine, but in fact attempts to sell the Respondent’s competing pumps. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that its LOWARA brand is a leader in providing long term economical solutions for pumping and circulating clean or contaminated water. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its LOWARA trademark because it incorporates the LOWARA trademark in its entirety. The Complainant alleges that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” must be disregarded from the confusing similarity analysis as a necessary registration component.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because it did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not own any LOWARA trademarks. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has not been commonly known under the Domain Name. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to direct to an online store that purportedly sells Lowara pumps, but in fact attempts to sell the Respondent’s competing pumps to customers interested in the Complainant’s goods. The Complainant argues that the Respondent creates an impression of its website being related to or authorized by the Complainant by using the Complainant’s LOWARA trademark and logo on the website associated with the Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that it is likely that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of the Domain Name registration because of the following: 1) it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the LOWARA trademark at the time of the Domain Name registration because the word Lowara is not a generic term, 2) the Respondent cannot claim to be using the Domain Name for any legitimate purpose unrelated to the Complainant and/or their products, 3) there is no plausible explanation as to why the Respondent selected the term Lowara as part of the Domain Name other than to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant, 4) the Complainant is a renowned company operating specifically in the field of pumps, 5) the Respondent registered the Domain Name many years after the Complainant began using and advertising the LOWARA trademark, 6) the website corresponding to the Domain Name prominently displays the LOWARA trademark, the LOWARA logo and a lot of other information that is intended to mislead the consumers into believing the Domain Name directs to an official website belonging to and/or authorized by the Complainant.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith because the Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to an online store purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s pumps when, in fact, it attempts to convince customers interested in the Complainant’s goods to buy less expensive pumps of the Respondent The Complainant claims that the Respondent’s company, IWT, the Complainant’s principal competitor in Ukraine, is using the Domain Name to disrupt its business. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent used a privacy shield service to hide its registration information for the purpose of frustrating any legal action taken by trademark owners. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to