WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fendi Adele Srl. v. Ashot Rostomian
Case No. D2000-1247
1. The Parties
A. The complainant is Fendi Adele S.r.l. , Via Cornelia 498, Rome, Italy.
B. The respondent is Ashot Rostomian, p.o. box 873, Glendale, CA 91209-0873, U.S.A.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is:
""
The Registrar is:
Network Solutions, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received the complaint on September 21, 2000 and September 22, 2000 (electronic/hardcopy). The Center received the Registrar verification response on September 29, 2000. Respondent�s default was notified on October 24, 2000. The panel was appointed on October 30, 2000.
4. Factual Background
A. The Trademark
The complaint is based on the trademark Fendi. The complainant is the owner of the following registered trademark:
- In Italy, Fendi, under several registrations since 1976,and all valid up to 2006;
- In the U.S.A., N� 1244466, since 1983;
- In the United Kingdom, N� 1176026; since 1982.
The complainant is also allegedly owner of 675 other trademark registrations and applications for Fendi throughout the world.
B. The Complaint
The grounds for the complaint are:
- The domain name is totally identical to the complainant�s trademark.
- The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name as the complainant has exclusive rights on the trademark Fendi and no authorization has been given to the respondent for the use of the mark.
- The respondent is of bad faith as shown by the non-active status of "". The list of other domain names the respondent has obtained registration for and referring to other well-known trademark suggests opportunist bad faith.
C. The Respondent
The respondent has not submitted any response.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The domain name is identical to the complainant�s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests of Respondent
Respondent is defaulting. Therefore it is not possible to find which legitimate interests it may have to the domain name in issue.
C. Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The respondent has registered domain names in connection with several well-known trademarks such as , , , , , amongst others. In the absence of any explanation given by the respondent on the possible grant of a license to him by the holders of those trademarks, the list of those domain names is prima facie evidence of a registration and use in bad faith.
6. Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the panel decides that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical to the corresponding trademark of the complainant, that the respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of this domain name and that the domain name in issue has been and is being used in bad faith by the respondent.
Accordingly the panel requires that the registration of the domain name "" be transferred to the complainant.
François Dessemontet,
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 3, 2000.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy