WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Deutz AG. v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) / Mustafa Gunduz Case No. D2018-2107 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Deutz AG. of Cologne, Germany, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, Germany.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America (“United States”) / Mustafa Gunduz of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Aerotek Bilisim Taahut Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 14, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 19, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 20, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 21, 2018.

Pursuant to the Complaint submitted in English and the registrar verification dated September 19, 2018 stating that Turkish is the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name, on September 20, 2018, the Center sent a request in English and Turkish that the Parties submit their comments on the language of the proceeding. On September 21, 2018, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 in English and Turkish of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2018.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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 is an engine manufacturer based in Germany. The Complainant was founded in 1864 and manufactures and internationally distributes diesel engines and engine components for agricultural machinery, marine propulsion, automobiles and construction equipment.

The Complainant is the owner of various DEUTZ trademarks, registered in a large number of jurisdictions. According to the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the International Trademark Registration No. 739507, registered on March 30, 2018 (i.a. registered in Turkey on January 21, 2002). The first German trademark applications comprising the word mark DEUTZ (e.g. No. 257717) date back to the 1920s.

The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names, which incorporate the trademark DEUTZ, such as or .

The Respondent is an individual from Istanbul, Turkey.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2016.

The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant (cf. Annexes 10 and 11), show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in English, where the Respondent offers spare parts that apply to engines and other products of the Complainant and also other companies as well. Furthermore, it can be seen on the provided screenshots that the Respondent uses the DEUTZ word mark of the Complainant without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the (non-existent) relationship between the Parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DEUTZ trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s DEUTZ trademark, when registering and using it as a distinctive part of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings