WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1925 for freywille.org
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG v. Kabir S Rawat Case No. D2018-1925 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG of Vienna, Austria, represented by Salomonowitz Horak, Austria.
The Respondent is Kabir S Rawat of Haryana, India. 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 August 24, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2018, 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 September 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 24, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 25, 2018.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 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 Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG is an Austrian producer of luxury artistic jewelry, decorations and accessories, known internationally for its limited production of enamel and gold jewelry and exclusive distribution. The Complainant is operating more than 100 flagship boutique-stores worldwide, most of them owned by itself, some of them being authorized partner stores.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations, such as the International trademark registration no. 824396 of August 25, 2003 for FREY WILLE, covering goods in classes 3, 14, 16, 18 and 25 and being registered in many countries worldwide.
Previous UDRP panels have found the Complainant’s mark well known or with reputation. See for example Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG v. Zhuang Yong Xing,WIPO Case No. D2018-0050; Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG v. dong wu / wu dong,WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0005; Frey Wille GmbH & Co KG v. Zhuang Yong,WIPO Case No. D2014-1840; Frey Wille GmbH & Co KG v. Li ning,WIPO Case No. D2013-2178; and Frey Wille GmbH & Co. KG v. Steve Haiter,WIPO Case No. D2012-1451.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2018 and at the time of filing the Complaint, it resolved to a webpage displaying sponsored links to third party websites and offering it for public sale.
On August 3, 2018, the Respondent contacted the Complainant’s CEO, on his personal email address which is not publicly available, in order to offer to sell the disputed domain name for the amount of USD 2,500.
The Respondent is apparently active in the business of buying and selling domain names, as provided in Annex 15 to Complaint, it holds approximately 645 domain names.
The Respondent was involved in another UDRP procedure decided against it, see Cantor Fitzgerald Securities v. Kabir S Rawat,WIPO Case No. D2013-1257. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well known trademark FREY WILLE, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name , and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a)