ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Case No. CN-2001356

Complainant: Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc. Respondent: Mabel M. Rush Domain Name: balitmoreaircoil.com Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.

1. Procedural History

On October 10, 2020, the Complainant submitted a Complaint in Chinese to the Beijing Office of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (the ADNDRC Beijing Office) and elected this case to be dealt with by a one-person panel, in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the ADNDRC Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ADNDRC Supplemental Rules) approved by the ADNDRC.

On October 10, 2020, the ADNDRC Beijing Office sent to the Complainant by email an acknowledgement of the receipt of the Complaint and transmitted by email to ICANN and the Registrar, NameCheap, Inc., a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name.

On October 12, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the ADNDRC Beijing Office its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On October 30, 2020, the ADNDRC Beijing Office request the Complainant to provide the English version of Complaint and revise the submission by email, and on

1 November 17, the Complainant sent the ADNDRC Beijing Office the revised Complaint in English.

On November 19, 2020, the ADNDRC Beijing Office notified the Complainant that the Complaint has been confirmed and transmitted to the Respondent and the case officially commenced. On the same day, the ADNDRC Beijing Office transmitted and send the Written Notice of the Complaint to the Respondent by email and post, which informed that the Complainant had filed a Complaint against the disputed domain name and the ADNDRC Beijing Office had sent the complaint and its attachments through email according to the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. On the same day, the ADNDRC Beijing Office notified ICANN and registrar, NameCheap, Inc., of the commencement of the proceedings.

The Respondent failed to submit a Response within the specified time period. The ADNDRC Beijing Office notified the Respondent’s default. Since the Respondent did not mention the Panel selection in accordance with the time specified in the Rules, the ADNDRC Supplemental Rules, and the Notification, the ADNDRC Beijing Office informed the Complainant and the Respondent that the ADNDRC Beijing Office would appoint a one-person panel to proceed to render the decision.

Having received a Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and a Statement of Acceptance from Dr. Lulin GAO, the ADNDRC Beijing Office notified the parties on January 4, 2021 that the Panel in this case had been selected, with Dr. Lulin GAO acting as the sole panelist. The Panel determines that the appointment was made in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the Rules and Articles 8 and 9 of the Supplemental Rules.

On January 6, 2021, the Panel received the file from the ADNDRC Beijing Office and should render the Decision within 14 days, i.e., on or before January 20, 2021.

On January 12, 2021, the Panel orders the Complainant to provide the copies of registration certificate and renewal certificate of “BALTIMORE AIRCOIL” (Reg. No.976242) on or before January 15, 2021, and the Respondent may submit response to the ADNDRC Beijing Office on or before January 18, 2021. The date for rendering the Decision is postponed to January 23, 2021.

On January 15, 2021, the Complainant submitted the supplemental evidence to the 2 ADNDRC Beijing Office. The ADNDRC Beijing Office then transferred the supplemental evidence to the Respondent and the Panelist by email. Until January 18, 2021, the Respondent failed to submit a Response within the specified time period.

Pursuant to Paragraph 11 (a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The language of the current disputed domain name Registration Agreement is English, thus the Panel determines English as the language of the proceedings.

2. Factual Background

A. The Complainant The Complainant in this case is Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc. The registered address is 7600 Dorsey Run Road, Jessup MD 19205, United States. The authorized representative in this case is Efar Zhou (Lawyer of MHP Law Firm).

B. The Respondent The Respondent in this case is Mabel M. Rush. The registered address is 1464 Richards Avenue, Tracy, CA 95376, United States.

The Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name “balitmoreaircoil.com”, which was registered on June 29, 2020 according to the WHOIS information. The registrar of the disputed domain name is NameCheap, Inc.

3. Parties’ Contentions

A. The Complainant (i) the main identification part of the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark owned by the Complaint

The disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark “ ” owned by the Complainant Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc., which has caused

3 confusing similarity.

(a) About the Complainant The company name of the Complainant is Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc., which is affiliated with Amsted Industries Inc. The Complainant, founded in 1938 by John Engalitcheff Jr., is a supplier of evaporative cooling and ice storage equipment with its global headquarters in Baltimore, USA.

As the world's leading manufacturer of evaporative cooling and ice storage equipment, the Complainant has ten production bases, more than 500 distributors and offices worldwide, with business covering six continents, more than 200 countries and regions, and sales and service network all over the world. The Complainant’s Asia-Pacific headquarters is located in Shanghai, China; there are sales and service networks in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand. The Complainant has over 500 employees in the Asia-Pacific region, aiming to provide high-quality products and services to the entire Asia-Pacific region.

The Complainant’s products cover a wide range of industrial and commercial fields, including heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, light industry and manufacturing, chemical and petroleum, metal manufacturers, district cooling stations and electricity. Partners include PetroChina, Tsingtao Brewery, Budweiser, Wahaha Group, , and many other noted international companies. The well-known industrial cases of the application of the Complainant’s products include Steel, State Grid, Jilin Petrochemical, Beijing Benz in the steel, electric power, petrochemical and automobile manufacturing industries; HVAC application cases include large projects such as Shanghai Center, Taipei 101, Jin Mao Tower, the Louvre in Paris, Burj Khalifa, Shanghai Disneyland and other well-known attractions, as well as district or regional cooling system in Qianhai Shenzhen, Pearl River New Town in Guangzhou, and Chicago in the United States, etc.

The Complainant has two production bases in China, located in Dalian and Kunshan, respectively. The Complainant’s factory in Kunshan is over 10,000 square meters, mainly produces cooling tower equipment to meet the growing demand in China and the surrounding Asian markets. The Complainant with its China headquarters in Dalian has 12 sales service centers and more than 300 sales personnel, which forms a nationwide sales and service network, enabling Chinese customers to enjoy more efficient and high-quality products as well as comprehensive solutions. 4

On October 10, 1997, the Complainant and Dalian Bingshan Group Co., Ltd. established a joint venture, BAC Dalian Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Dalian Bingshan Baltimore Aircoil Refrigeration Co., Ltd.). The total investment is 9.6 million US dollars and the registered capital is 4.8 million US dollars. During the past two decades, BAC Dalian Co., Ltd. has produced evaporative condensers, ice storage and other world-class products for renowned customers such as State Grid, Capital New Airport, PetroChina, , COFCO, , Huawei, Alibaba, Shanghai Tesla, Shanghai Center, Shenzhen Center provide. In 2020, the two parties of the joint venture invested 250 million RMB to build the world's most advanced factory of BAC in the Lvshun area of Dalian High-tech Zone, , and the BAC Asia-Pacific R&D center, upgrading to an intelligent manufacturing factory and comprehensively launching the "BAC China strategy" supported by product research and development.

The Complainant and its Chinese subsidiaries enjoy a high reputation in the industry and have won various awards. They have won the China Top Ten New Technology Application Awards in the 2011 Energy Conservation China Promotion and Commendation Event, China’s Top Ten Brands of Cooling and Heating Equipment, and China’s Top Ten Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Brands, the top Ten brands of energy-saving cooling towers of China in 2018, and other industry awards or rankings; well-known websites such as China.com, Chinabrands.com, Eastdays.com, Sohu.com have extensively reported the Complainant and its brands. Media publicized and reported the Complainant and its brands with terms such as "leading enterprise in the field of industrial refrigeration", "outstanding supplier in the field of HVAC, industrial refrigeration and process cooling in the Asia-Pacific region", and "global leader of evaporative heat exchange products and ice storage products", etc. The above facts prove that the "BAC", "Baltimore Aircoil" trade names and "Baltimore Aircoil" trademark held by the Complainant enjoy a high reputation among the relevant Chinese public.

In addition, the Complainant has priorly registered and owns domain names such as “www.baltimoreaircoil.com” and “www.baltimoreaircoil.cn”, and continues to use relevant domain names to publicize and promote the Complainant’s products and services with the trademark "Baltimore Aircoil".

(b) About the trademark rights enjoyed by the Complainant

As mentioned above, the Complainant has prior civil rights to the " " trademark. Before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, the

5 relevant trademarks and trade names of the Complainant have already been widely publicized and used by the Complainant in China, therefore its prior civil rights and interests should be protected. The Complainant has registered " " on evaporator and cooling equipment-related products in many countries, including China.

(c) The main identification part of the disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark “ ” owned by the Complainant Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc., which has caused confusing similarity. In the disputed domain name "balitmoreaircoil.com," ".com" is the synonym of the top-level domain, which is not within the scope of judging similarity; "balitmoreaircoil" is the core part of the disputed domain name in this case that should be compared with the " " trademark owned by the Complainant.

The Complainant owns trademark right to " ", such trademark was registered on April 7, 1997, and its approved products are commodities related to evaporator and cooling equipment. The Compliant owns such rights much earlier than the registration of the disputed domain name "balitmoreaircoil.com" on June 29, 2020. Moreover, the major part of the disputed domain name "balitmoreaircoil" is very similar to the Complainant's registered trademark " " ("Baltimore Aircoil"), with only the difference in the order of the two English letters "t" and "i". Since the Complainant is the world's leading manufacturer of evaporative cooling and ice storage equipment, it is easy for the public to misapprehend that the website or email address pointed to by the disputed domain name is the official website of the Complainant in China or the enterprise email address of the Complainant. Thereby, the main identification part of the disputed domain name "balitmoreaircoil.com" is confusingly similar to the trademark " " in which the Complainant has prior rights.

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name or its main part According to the record of the Trademark Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration of China, the Respondent has never applied for or registered any trademark related to “balitmoreaircoil” or “baltimoreaircoil”, thereby does not have any trademark rights. Moreover, the Complainant has never licensed, transferred, or granted in any other form the rights related to the "baltimoreaircoil" logo to the

6 Respondent, nor has made any business contact with the Respondent.

"Baltimoreaircoil" is also the trade name of the Complainant. It is an original phrase created by the Complainant with a combination of the name of its founding place and its main products. It has been long used by the Complainant to enjoy a high international reputation. “Baltimore” is the English name of the Complainant’s founding place in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, while the “balitmore” in the disputed domain name does not exist in English vocabulary. The Respondent swapped the two letters in a sixteen letter phrase as its domain name, which is a deliberate imitation and malicious confusion. Therefore, the Respondent does not have any legitimate rights in the "balitmoreaircoil" and it furthermore infringe the rights and legitimate interests of the Complainant in " " trademark.

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered maliciously and is being used in bad faith. On July 13, 2020, the Respondent successfully registered a mailbox with the suffix "@balitmoreaircoil.com" using the disputed domain name "balitmoreaircoil.com", and the Respondent used this email address to send fraudulent emails to the Complainant's customer, deceiving the customer into making payments to a bank account under the Respondent’s control. Since the suffix of the email address corresponding to the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s email address’ suffix, the customer mistakenly believed that the email by “@balitmoreaircoil.com” was sent by the Complainant. Hence, the customer wired $159,300 US Dollars to the bank account controlled by the Respondent under its malicious deception.

Such conduct of the Respondent not only severely disrupted the order of market competition and damaged the rights and legitimate interests of the Complainant, but also suspected of serious fraud and criminal offenses.

At the same time, the Compliant, as the world's leading manufacturer of evaporative cooling and ice storage equipment, and its " " trademark and tradename enjoy a high reputation in the industry. The main identification part of the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, only with a two-letter difference in order. There is no reasonable cause for the Respondent to register a domain name that is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore, such conduct is completely illegitimate. The registration of

7 the disputed domain name has the malicious intent of plagiarizing, copying the Complainant’s well-known trademark, thereby confusing with the Complainant’s trademark, and misleading the public for illegitimate commercial gain; such conduct falls under Article 4b(iii) of the Policy that the Respondent "registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor."

Since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and trade name, the disputed domain name causes public confusion, making the public believe that the Respondent’s mailbox with the disputed domain name suffix is owned and used by the Complainant. The use by the Respondent of disputed domain name is indeed a malicious fraud for which the Respondent should be held criminally liable. The fraudulent act of the Respondent that it maliciously registered the disputed domain name and used the "balitmoreaircoil" suffix mailbox has already caused significant losses to the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name is clearly a malicious conduct.

The Complainant requests the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. The Respondent The Respondent did not make any response within the prescribed time period.

4. Discussions and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant shall prove the following three elements:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) Circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the

8 domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) The respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) The respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) By using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

A. Identity or Confusing Similarity

The Complainant submitted the registration info of the trademark “ ” with registration No. 976242 in China (registered on April 7, 1997), and supplemented the renewal certificates and certificate regarding change of address of the said registration. Based on the evidence submitted and the facts the Panel founds, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has exclusive rights over the “ ” trademark prior to the registration date of the dispute domain name (June 29, 2020).

The disputed domain name is “balitmoreaircoil.com”. The suffix “.com” only indicates that the disputed domain name is registered under the general top-level domain (gTLD) name and is not distinctive. Therefore, the distinctive part of the disputed domain name should be “balitmoreaircoil”. When comparing the words “BALTIMORE AIRCOIL” in the Complainant’s registered trademark and the “balitmoreaircoil” in the disputed domain name, it is clear that they only differ in the fourth and fifth letters “ti” and “it” with reversed order, and are confusingly similar in terms of words compositions, pronunciations and overall appearances. The Panel holds that the disputed trade name is confusingly similar with the “ ” trademark of the Complainant.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

9 registered trademark over which the Complainant enjoys rights; and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a) (i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests of the Respondent

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has never applied for or registered any trademark related to “balitmoreaircoil” or “baltimoreaircoil”, thereby does not have any trademark rights. Moreover, the Complainant has never licensed, transferred, or granted in any other form the rights related to the "baltimoreaircoil" logo to the Respondent, nor has made any business contact with the Respondent.

The Respondent did not make any response within the prescribed time, nor did he/she make any explanation or provide any evidence to prove his/her trademark rights, trade name right, legitimate interests, or any other legal rights to the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has provided preliminary evidence required by Paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy and the burden of proof is transferred to the Respondent, who should prove its rights or legitimate interests of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent failed to respond and did not submit any evidence. Hence, the Panel cannot come to a conclusion that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the Paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.

C. Bad Faith

According to the evidence 13 submitted by the Complainant, a third party used the email address “[email protected]” with the suffix “balitmoreaircoil.com”, which is identical to the disputed domain name “balitmoreaircoil.com”, to send invoice to the Complainant’s customer and request the Complainant’s customer to make payments to the designated account. Both the email and the invoice identified the

“ ” trademark which is a registered mark of the Complainant, and the URL www.baltimoreaircoil.com, while baltimoreaircoil.com is registered by the Complainant.

10 Such evidence shows that the sender is well aware of the Complainant and its trademarks, and is pretending himself/herself to be the Complainant or its affiliate in order to deceive the Complainant’s customer to make payment into the wrong account. Further, the email was sent on July 30, 2020, while the registration date of the disputed domain name “balitmoreaircoil.com” was June 29, 2020. The above dates are quite close, which suggests that the registration of the disputed domain name is merely for the purpose of conducting such fraud action, instead of for other legitimate or reasonable business or personal use.

In this case, the Respondent failed to make any explanation or provide any evidence of his/her right in the disputed domain name, nor any explanation regarding the email submitted by the Complainant. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the email address with the suffix “balitmoreaircoil.com” is under the Respondent’s control as the Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registers the disputed domain name in order to conduct fraud, and gain illegal interests. Such action is obviously taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark, and has caused damages to the Complainant and its customers, and may consequently damage the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. Hence, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the Paragraph 4(a) (iii) of the Policy.

In light of all above circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the Paragraph 4(a) (i) (ii) (iii) of the Policy.

5. Decision For all the forgoing reasons, the Panel has decided that the Complainant has proved sufficiently the three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name “balitmoreaircoil.com” shall be transferred to the Complainant, Baltimore Aircoil Company Inc..

Dated: January 23, 2021

11