WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bodegas y Bebidas, S.A. v. Multimedia Digital Rioja, S.L.
Case No. D2001-0977
1. The Parties
1.1. The Complainant is Bodegas y Bebidas, S.A. incorporated in San Sebastián, Spain
1.2. The Respondent is Multimedia Digital Rioja, S.L., incorporated in Logroño, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The domain name subject-matter of this Complaint is .
2.2 The Registrar of this domain name is Gandi of Paris, France, ("Registrar").
3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complainant submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO Center") a Complaint made pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy implemented by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, ("Policy"), and under the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy implemented by ICANN on the same date ("Rules"). The copy of the Complaint submitted by e-mail was received by the WIPO Center on July 31, 2001, and the hardcopy of the Complaint submitted by courier was received by the WIPO Center on August 3, 2001. An Acknowledgement of Receipt dated August 3, 2001, was sent by e-mail by the WIPO Center to the Complainant.
3.2 A Request for Registrar Verification was dispatched by the WIPO Center to the Registrar by e-mail on August 3, 2001. The Registrar responded by e-mail to the WIPO Center on August 6, 2001. A second Request for Registrar Verification was dispatched by the WIPO Center to the Registrar by e-mail on August 7, 2001. The Registrar responded by e-mail to the WIPO Center on August 9, 2001.
3.3 A Request for Amendment was sent to the Complainant on August 7, 2001, in order to include the correct Registrar. An Amendment was received at the WIPO Center by e-mail on August 23, 2001, and the paper copy on August 30, 2001.
3.4 Having verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy and the Rules, the WIPO Center sent a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent on August 31 2001, by courier, fax and e-mail.
3.5 The Respondent filed a communication on August 31, 2001.
3.6 In accordance with the request in the Complaint, the WIPO Center proceeded to appoint an Administrative Panel composed of a single Panelist, inviting Mario A. Sol Muntañola to act as such on October 2, 2001. Therefrom, a decision shall be provided by this Administrative Panel, absent exceptional circumstances, by October 16, 2001.
3.7 The case before this Administrative Panel is being conducted in the English language in accordance with the registration agreement and the language of the Complaint. Therefore the language of the decision shall be English.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant owns the following Spanish registered product trademarks: "Campo Viejo" in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33; "Campo Viejo Oro" in class 33; and "Campo Viejo Plata" in class 33. They match with the well-known wine trademark "Rioja". Campo Viejo, S.A. is a society affiliate to Bodegas y Bebidas, S.A. and is the leading "Bodega" under the designation of origin "Rioja".
4.2 The Respondent owns the domain name , registered through Gandi. The domain name is not in use, that is to say, there is no web page under this domain name. Since 1997 the Respondent has a signed agreement with the "Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Rioja" (Board of Control of the Rioja Designation of Origin) for advising, promoting and controlling the correct use of Rioja wine and of its "bodegas" in internet.
5. Parties� Contentions
5.1 The Complaint
5.1.1 The Complainant contends to own seven trademarks and a business name with the words "Campo Viejo". Also, that there is an obvious identity between the Complainant�s trademarks and the domain name subject to this procedure, which clearly generates a very high risk of confusion among consumers.
5.1.2 The Complainant states that the Respondent holds neither legitimate right nor interest whatsoever to use the name "Campo Viejo" and it has never been referred to ordinarily by its domain name.
5.1.3 The Complainant contends that the Respondent prevents Bodegas y Bebidas, S.A. from reflecting its trademarks in the corresponding generic top level domain, impedes it to fully position itself on internet and blocks its possibility of complete development on the net disturbing its activity.
5.2 The Response
5.2.1 The Respondent answered the complaint without justifying the reasons for the registration, but acquitting to the claims of the Complainant and communicating that it had no intention of answering the complaint. The Respondent also indicated that it was not going to pose any obstacles for the process to proceed its course until the Complainant achieved its objective, that is, until the transfer of the domain name, and was even willing to make the achievement of such objectives easy.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Applicable rules
According to Paragraph 15 a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide a 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.
6.2 Fulfillment of the requirements according to the Policy, Paragraph 4 a):
6.2.1 Domain name identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
(a) The identity between the trademarks of the Complainant and the disputed domain name is evident, generating a clear risk of confusion.
6.2.2 Respondent�s rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
(a) Not only the Respondent has not justified any legitimate interest on the disputed domain name or any fair use of it, but has acquitted to the complaint filed by the Complainant while declaring to be willing to make the transfer of the domain name easy.
(b) The Panel considers that the Respondent has not been commonly known before by the domain name, and has no authorization or license from the legitimate rights holder of such denomination, given that the Respondent has not opposed to the statements of the Complainant in this sense.
(c) Moreover, the Respondent has not justified to have performed serious arrangements for a normal, legitimate and fair use of the domain name in dispute. As the Panel has been able to see for itself, trying to access the pages corresponding to the domain name , the Respondent does not even have a web site under construction offering any explanation about the reason or interest that it may have on the denominations it has registered. However, the Respondent holds under its control a page the aim of which is the promotion and control of the correct use of the "Rioja" designation of origin. This inevitably leads to convincing the Panel that the Respondent knows the Spanish wine market and the different denominations of which it is composed very well.
6.2.3 Domain Name registered and used in bad faith
(a) The Panel does not know the reason that has lead the Respondent to register the domain name under complaint, but the fact that the domain name is in the hands of the Respondent, who in turn runs the web page of "Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Rioja" (Board of Control of the Rioja Designation of Origin), is a puzzling paradox. This does not only disturb the activity of the Complainant, but it also impedes the Complainant to position itself correctly on the Net, precisely in the space of the net that the Respondent must promote, control and administer in favor of enterprises like the Complainant.
However, the Panel considers that it is not necessary to continue with the analysis of the factors established in the Policy. In this case, the Respondent�s statements, relative to its willingness for the Complainant to achieve its objective �the transfer of the domain name�, must be interpreted as an acquittal to the claims of the latter and, therefore, an express recognition of the existence of the three conditions required by the Policy.
7. Decision
In view of the above circumstances and facts, the Panel decides that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant's trademarks, that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the Respondent's has acquitted to the claims of the Complainant.
Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Panel requires that the registration of the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Mario A. Sol Muntañola
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 15, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy