WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sennheiser electronic GmbH & Co. KG v. Jeff Holden, Holdenz Case No. D2019-0796 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sennheiser electronic GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, Germany.

The Respondent is Jeff Holden, Holdenz, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Andrii Raietsky, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 8, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 April 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on April 28, 2019. The Respondent sent email communications on April 9 and May 3, 2019. The Complainant sent an email communication on May 3, 2019, and submitted a supplemental filing on May 6, 2019.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 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

In its Complaint the Complainant gives evidence that the Complainant was founded in 1945 by Mr. Fritz Sennheiser, selling, initially, voltmeters. It has since expanded into an international company with over 2,800 employees and manufacturing plants in Germany, Ireland and USA, as well as sales subsidiaries and research laboratories worldwide. It sells its products worldwide including in the USA where it has its headquarters in Connecticut and a production facility in New Mexico.

The Complainant now specializes in the design and production of a variety of audio products including, microphones, headphones, wireless technology, monitor systems, telephone accessories, aviation and office headsets, and all‑round audio solutions. Evidence as to the history and activities of the company is set out at annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint. It has a “huge” sales and service network throughout the world.

The Complainant is the owner of a large trademark portfolio in respect of the mark SENNHEISER particularly in the European Union and USA. These marks are registered in classes relating to the Complainant’s commercial activities and in particular audio technology, and in a large number of countries. Excerpts from the registers are set out in annex 6 to the Complaint. All these registrations predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name on November 16, 2000. One such example is SENNHEISER, International trademark registration no. 670839, registered March 6, 1997.

The Complainant is also the owner of a large number of domain names incorporating the mark SENNHEISER, e.g., and . Printouts are exhibited at annex 7 to the Complaint. It also promotes its products on the website “www.” as evidenced by the printout at annex 4 to the Complaint.

The Respondent who is an individual, in his Response, confirms that it does not sell headphones or electronics. He states that he obtained the disputed domain name as a memorial to a bulldog called “Sanh” or “Senh”.

There is no material conflict between the evidence adduced by the parties. The Panel therefore accepts both parties’ evidence as true and proceeds to determine the Complaint accordingly. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits,

i. It has trade mark rights in the mark SENNHEISER and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark SENNHEISER save for the fact that the disputed domain name is spelt with one letter
“n”.

ii. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or interests in the mark SENNHEISER or in the term “senheiser” as used in the disputed domain name. It has not been authorized to use SENNHEISER.

iii. When registering the disputed domain name the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark SENNHEISER as a result of the Complainant’s worldwide trading activities and worldwide trade mark registrations including, in particular, in the USA where the Respondent is located.

iv. The misspelling of SENNHEISER as “senheiser” is an indication of bad faith.

v. The disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of sale to the Complainant at a “(highly) exaggerated price”.

vi. The Respondent’s website shows no content