WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation
Case No. D2000-0023
1. The Parties
Complainant is Parfums Christian Dior S.A., 125 rue du Pr�sident Wilson, 92593 Levallois-Perret Cedex, France. Respondent is QTR Corporation, Doha, Quatar 000, QA.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is ""; hereinafter referred to as the "Domain Name". The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received Christian Dior's complaint on January 29, 2000 (hard copy and exhibits). The Center verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). Complainant made the required payment to the Center. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is February 4, 2000.
On February 1, 2000, the Center transmitted via email to Network Solutions, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with this case. On February 3, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. transmitted via email to the Center, Network Solutions� Verification Response, confirming that the registrant is QTR Corporation and that the contact for both administrative and billing purposes is Mr. Abdulla.
Having verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the
Policy and the Rules, the Center transmitted on February 4, 2000, to abdulla@QTR.net and webmaster@ the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding. The Center advised that the response was due by February 23, 2000. On the same day, the Center transmitted via air mail copies of the foregoing documents to:
QTR Corporation
Doha
Quatar 000
On February 24, 2000 having received no Response from the Respondent, the Center issued to both the postal and email addresses of both parties a Notification of Respondent Default. No reply by Respondent to the Notification of Respondent Default was received.
On February 24, 2000, in view of the Complainant�s designation of a single panelist the Center invited M. Geert Glas to serve as a panelist and transmitted to him the Request for Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and a Statement of Acceptance.
Having received, on February 25, 2000, M. Geert Glas' Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and his Statement of Acceptance, the Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which M. Geert Glas was formally appointed as the Sole Panelist. The Projected Decision Date was March 9, 2000. The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and Supplemental Rules.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file, the Administrative Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore the Administrative Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
4. Factual Background
The complaint is based upon the trademark DIOR registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under No. 886,004 on February 10, 1970. Complainant has registered several other trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which include amongst others CHRISTIAN DIOR, DIORLIGHT and DIORIFIC.
It appears from Network Solutions� Verification Response that Respondent is the registrant of the Domain Name. Respondent registered the Domain Name on November 21, 1999. The WHOIS record of the Domain Name includes as part of the address of the Registrant the mention: "This domain name is for sale". Respondent also registered at least 49 other domain names, some of which also include in the WHOIS record the same mention: "This domain name is for sale". There is no relation between Respondent and Complainant and Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has he otherwise obtained an authorization to use Complainant�s mark. The Domain Name does not resolve to a web site or other on-line presence.
5. Parties Contentions Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the Domain Name which is identical to Complainant's DIOR mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Consequently, Complainant requires the transfer of the Domain Name registration to the Complainant.Respondent
Respondent has not contested the allegations of the Complaint and is in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Administrative Panel as to the principles the Administrative Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Applied to this case, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Identity
It is beyond dispute that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant's DIOR mark.
Complainant has for several decades successfully been using its DIOR mark primarily in the areas of fashion and cosmetics. It can be said that the DIOR mark is a well-known mark in the sense of art. 6 bis of the Paris Convention.
In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the DIOR mark of Complainant.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its DIOR mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating this mark.
By not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4c of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Administrative Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The WHOIS record of the Domain Name includes as part of Respondent's (the registrant's) identification, the mention: "This is domain name is for sale."
The same mention can be found in the WHOIS record of several other domain names registered by Respondent who seems to be in the business of registering and selling domain names.
This mention which Respondent knowingly included as part of the public records on the Domain Name clearly indicates that Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the Domain Name registration for valuable consideration.
There is no evidence that Respondent has associated the Domain Name with any website or online presence.
In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
7. Decision
In light of the foregoing, the Administrative Panel decides that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical to Complainant's DIOR mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that Respondent�s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4,i of the Policy, the Administrative Panel requires that the registration of the Domain Name "" be transferred to Complainant.
Geert Glas
Sole Panelist
Date: March 9, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy