WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Juventus F.C. S.p.a. v. Sergio Bragança
Case No. D2000-1466
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Juventus F.C. S.p.a., Piazza Crimea 7, 10131 Torino, Italy.
The Respondent is Mr. Sergio Bragança, Urb Massama Norte Lt. 43-4 A, Massama - Lisboa, 2685, Portugal.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is "".
The Registrar with which the domain name is registered is R Inc.
3. Procedural History
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") received the Complaint on October 27, 2000 by e-mail and in hardcopy on November 1, 2000.
After having verified whether the Complaint was satisfying the formal requirements, the Center sent to the Complainant the Notification of Complaint's Deficiency pursuant to Paragraph 4 (b) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Rules"). The Center requested the Complainant to amend its complaint in respect of the identification of the Registrar with whom the domain name at stake had been registered (Para. 3 (b) (vii) of the Rules) which was incorrect.
The Center sent the corresponding Request for Registrar Verification in connection with this case to R Inc. On November 6, 2000, the Registrar's verification response confirmed that the Registrant was Mr. Sergio Bragança and that the domain name "" was in "active" status.
On that same date, the Center received the Complaint, amended as requested.
On November 9, 2000, the Center notified by courier and E-mail the Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings to the Respondent, in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Rules.
On November 29, 2000, the Center issued by E-mail the Notification of Default to the Respondent for having failed to submit a response in this matter.
On December 8, 2000, the Center proceeded with the appointment of the Administrative Panel pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Rules and advised the Parties of the appointment of the undersigned as sole panelist in accordance with Paragraph 6 (f) of said Rules.
Transmission of the file to the latter was made on that same day by E-mail and registered post, hard copy of which was received by him few days later.
Shortly before and after the Notification of Respondent's Default, miscellaneous correspondence took place between the Center and the Parties, as examined below.
The Sole Panelist forwarded his decision to the Center within the time limit fixed.
4. Factual Background
The Complaint is based on the Community Trade Mark Application No. 520148 for "JUVENTUS JUVE STORE & device" for classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 34,and 41, and the International Registration No. 684045 for "JUVE" according to the Madrid Agreement, for classes 18, 25 and 28 (Complainant's Exhibit No. 3).
The Complainant is the owner of the domain name , and .
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant mainly submits that :
(i) the domain name is identical to its trademark and contains the nickname which is also a registered trademark of Juventus;
(ii) the Respondent is not a licensee of Juventus nor authorized to use Juventus marks and, on information and belief, is not the owner of any registered trademark or related right containing either the terms "JUVE" or "JUVESTORE"; in addition, the Respondent has not demonstrated any legitimate interest in the use of the domain name in dispute which cannot be associated with its nickname;
(iii) the Respondent has not developed or posted a website using or made any other good faith use of said domain name; bad faith registration and use is established by the fact that the trademark "JUVE" is a well known trademark in the European Union and in Portugal and its widespread use and reputation abroad should lead to conclude that the entity owning the domain name in contention belongs to, or is in some way associated with the Complainant who is of the firm belief that such registration was made and maintained with the sole aim of recovering financial consideration from it.
The Complainant contends therefore that it is entitled to the transfer of the domain name in its favor.
B. Respondent
The Respondent has not submitted any response to the Complaint.
However on November 27, 2000, the Respondent advised the Center that its intention was to "pass the register to JUVENTUS" and sought the necessary instructions to that effect.
Informed of such communication, the Complainant expressed the view by E-mail dated November 28, 2000 that this was most probably a delaying tactic adopted by the Respondent and requested continuation of the proceedings.
On November 30, 2000, the Respondent forwarded by E-mail to the Center, the Domain Name Registration Invoice with all details including the non-refundable registration fee of USD 35.--, stating "� with this you can transfer the domain to Juventus"
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy") sets forth three requirements which have to be met for the Administrative Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Those requirements are that:
(i) Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
(iii) Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant must prove in the administrative proceedings that each of the aforesaid three elements are present so as to warrant relief, according to Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy.
The Administrative Panel has to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable, pursuant to Paragraph 15 (a) of said Rules.
In the instant case, the Sole Panelist notes that the Respondent has not disputed any of the Complainant's contentions.
Moreover, the Respondent has even taken the initiative, even if made quite late, to declare itself ready for the transfer of the domain name at stake.
Under the circumstances described above, the Sole Panelist understands this to mean that the Respondent actually expressed its agreement to transfer the domain name to the Complainant (see, as example, a similar case : Deutsche Bank AG vs. Carl Seigler, Case No. D2000-0984).
The Sole Panelist takes note of such an agreement although the Respondent has not given any instructions to the Registrar in this respect.
In light of the aforementioned agreement and absent any dispute as to the facts of the case as submitted by the Complainant, it is therefore not necessary to elaborate further as to whether the requirements of Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy have been met in this matter.
7. Decision
Noting that the Respondent has agreed to the transfer of the domain name in dispute, the Sole Panelist decides that the registration of the domain name "" be transferred to the Complainant.
Christophe Imhoos
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 20, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy