WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sperre Mek. Verksted AS v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / The Allied Valve Spares Mfg. Co. Case No. D2018-2904 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sperre Mek. Verksted AS of Ellingsøy, Norway, represented by Onsagers AS, Norway.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America (“United States”) / The Allied Valve Spares Mfg. Co. of Mumbai, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2018. On December 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an e-mail communication to the Complainant on January 7, 2019, 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 January 7, 2019.

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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2019.

The Center appointed A. Justin Ourso III as the sole panelist in this matter on February 6, 2019. 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 Sperre Mek. Verksted AS, a Norwegian manufacturer and seller, internationally, of compressors and pumps, which has been in business for over 80 years. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for its figurative trademark SPERRE (& design), which is registered in Norway, the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, and China in Classes 07, 12, and 37, including for compressors. All of its registered marks are figurative (design) marks, with the word portion “Sperre” dominant in the mark. The Complainant’s earliest application filing date for Norwegian trademark No. 228562 was in 2004, registered in October 7, 2005, and its mark was registered in all of these countries in all three classes by 2009. The Complainant also owns the domain name and provides information on its goods and services at its web site, “www.”.

The Respondent, Perfect Privacy, LLC, of the United States / The Allied Valve Spares Mfg. Co. of India, which has not submitted a response to the Complaint, owns a registration for the Domain Name, , which was registered on October 14, 2011, and is currently registered through a privacy service.

The Domain Name resolves to a site advertising and selling compressor parts, including photographs of some of the goods offered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Generally, the Complainant contends:

1. It has operated over 80 years, with a strong, long-standing, and widespread use of its SPERRE brand internationally, in the manufacture and sale of state-of-the-art compressors and pumps, and offers information on its goods and services at its web site www..
2. It owns registrations for its trademark SPERRE (& figure) in Norway, the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, and China.
3. The Respondent’s trademark infringement is taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the Complainant’s mark.
4. The marketing and sale by the Respondent of inauthentic goods using the Complainant’s mark SPERRE on goods identical to those sold by the Complainant is trademark infringement.

Regarding the first element of a claim set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant contends:

1. It owns trademark registrations for goods in Classes 07, 12, and 37, including compressors.
2. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
3. The Domain Name is a compound of the Complainant’s distinctive mark SPERRE and the generic word “parts,” thereby fully incorporating the Complainant’s mark.
4. The added word “parts” is void of distinctive character and directly points to the Complainant’s goods.
5. It claims priority for its trademark registrations from September 9, 2004, and the Domain Name was not registered until October 14, 2011.
6. The Respondent’s use of the word “Sperre” in its Domain Name for the sale of compressor spare parts on its web site at “www.” and the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s figurative SPERRE mark on photos of machines on this site infringe the Complainant’s trademark rights.

Regarding the second element set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant contends:

1. The Respondent registered the Domain Name and is advertising and selling compressor components through its web site “www.”.
2. The Respondent is using the Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name.
3. The Respondent is using the mark SPERRE in advertising and selling compressor parts at the Respondent’s web site, including in photographs of the goods offered on the Respondent’s web site.
4. None of the goods offered for sale on the Respondent’s web site are authentic goods manufactured by the Complainant.
5 The Respondent is unfairly profiting by illegal use of the Complainant’s mark and reputation, by offering goods covered by the Complainant’s trademark registrations.
6. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Regarding the third element set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), the Complainant contends:

1. The Respondent primarily registered the Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s web site for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, affiliation, and endorsement of a product on the Respondent’s web site.
2. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. The Effect of the Respondent’s Default

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. If a respondent does not submit a response, the panel decides the dispute based upon the complaint. Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a). The panel decides a complaint on the basis of the statements and docu