WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Prada S.A. v. Domains For Sale Inc.
Case No. D2002-0512
1. The Parties
Complainant is Prada S.A. represented by Ned W. Branthover, Esq., Robin Blecker & Daley 330 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, United States of America, hereinafter the "Complainant".
Respondent is Domains for sale inc., 5444 Arlington Ave. #g14, Bronx, NY 10471, United States of America, hereinafter the "Respondent".
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is , hereinafter the "Domain Name".
The registrar for the disputed domain name is Tucows, Inc., 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, ON, M6K 3M1, Canada.
3. Procedural History
The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:
(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO") on May 31, 2002. On June 4, 2002, WIPO sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of Complaint to the Complainant.
(b) On June 4, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, with the Registrar�s Verification received by WIPO on June 4, 2002, confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through Tucows, Inc.
(c) On June 10, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent, after having satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("the Policy"), the Rules for the Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for the Policy ("the Supplemental Rules").
(d) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, WIPO issued a Notification of Respondent Default on July 1, 2002.
(e) In view of the Complainant�s designation of a single panelist, WIPO invited Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as a panelist. Having received his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, WIPO formally appointed him as Single Panelist. The parties were notified of the Appointment of Administrative Panel on July 16, 2002.
(f) The Single Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Administrative Panel shall issue its decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English.
4. Factual Background
Complainant is a company founded in 1913 in Italy, operating in the fashion business. The gross annual income for the year 2000 was $ 1.42 billion.
The Complainant has nearly 100 fully owned shops in various international cities, where own-branded products are sold.
Complainant has presented copies of trademark registrations of the mark PRADA in United States of America and in Italy.
Complainant has registered and uses among others the domain name for their services.
The Respondent has registered the domain name .
In April 2002 Complainant sent a letter to Respondent by e-mail, requesting that the Respondent cancelled the registration of the Domain Name. In a response to this letter, the Respondent offered to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant for a compensation of $ 500, -
Respondent has been involved in three previous UDRP proceedings.
5. Parties� Contentions
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
The domain name is virtually identical and is confusingly similar to Complainant�s PRADA trademark and trade name
The Complainant has provided ample evidence of its rights in the famous PRADA mark through its extensive and continuous use, as well as its numerous worldwide registrations.
The Domain Name contains the letters "www" preceding Complainant�s trademark, which constitutes a total appropriation of Complainant�s trademark and is virtually identical to the PRADA mark visually, phonetically and connotatively.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
The Complainant adopted and is using the PRADA mark worldwide, and such adoption and use precedes by nearly a hundred years the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent.
The Complainant has not licensed, contracted or otherwise permitted Respondent in any way to use the PRADA mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the mark.
There is no evidence that shows the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been or is commonly known by the Domain Name, or has acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the Domain Name.
Respondent is using the Domain Name to link to an anti-abortion Web site, and it has been held that such use is not in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services.
Furthermore, the use by the Respondent of the Domain Na
