WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v.
Case No. D2003-0099
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.), Fernandez de la Hoz, 12, D.P. 28010 Madrid, Spain, represented by Nominalia Internet, S.L. of Spain.
The Respondent is , Fskldfj, Tuluntuo 675187, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Register
The domain name the subject of the Complaint is (the "domain name").
The Registrar with which the domain name is registered is eNom, Inc. of 16770 NE 79th St. Suite 205, Redmond, WA 98052, United States of America (the "Registrar").
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 10, 2003. On February 12, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name. On February 18, 2003, 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 for the administrative, billing, and technical contact.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 18, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 10, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent�s default on March 11, 2003.
The Center appointed Dr Annabelle Bennett SC as the Sole Panelist in this matter on March 20, 2003. 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 following facts are asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint and are not disputed. The Panel finds these facts are proved.
The Complainant is a Spanish democratic trade union. It is a member of the International Confederation of Free Union Organizations and of the European Confederation of Unions. It has approximately 950,000 affiliates and more than 100,000 union delegates.
The Complainant is known and referred to in Spain by the name CC.OO. CC.OO. is and has been since at least 1973, a widely known trademark associated with the Complainant. The Complainant is the holder of the domain name and maintains its web site at that domain name.
The Complainant owns the following registrations for the trademark CC.OO. (in a stylised representation) in Spain:
Mark
Reg. No.
Reg. Date
Goods and Services
CC.OO.
(stylised)
2,161,686
April 20, 1999
Various goods in class 37.
CC.OO.
(stylised)
2,161,687
April 5, 1999
Various goods in class 39.
CC.OO.
(stylised)
2,161,688
April 20, 1999
Various goods in class 40.
The Respondent established a web site which was formerly (but no longer is) accessible at the domain name and which made available sexually explicit and pornographic material. The domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 22, 2000.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the domain name should be transferred to it as it is able to satisfy all three conditions provided in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4a(i): Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The Complainant asserts that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark CC.OO., in which the Complainant has rights. The registration numbers of the Complainant�s trade mark and the goods in respect of which it is registered in Spain are detailed above.
The Complainant asserts that the only difference between the Complainant�s trademark CC.OO. and the relevant part of the domain name is the additional character "." which is included in the trademark. The Complainant asserts that this additional character does not alter the visual identity of the domain name, and that the virtual identity between the domain name and the trademark meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4a(ii): Respondent�s Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. It relies upon assertions to the following effect:
(1) The Respondent has neither used nor made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent�s use of the domain name is likely to tarnish the Complainant�s trademark and does not demonstrate a legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent. Further, the services offered by the Respondent are not bona fide.
(2) The Complainant acquired rights in the trade mark CC.OO. before the registration of the domain name by the Respondent. The domain name was registered on March 22, 2000, whereas the Complainant has had rights in the registered trademark since April 5, 1999. Further, the trade mark CC.OO. has been widely known in connection with the Complainant at least since 1973.
(3) The Respondent has not been known by the domain name or by a name relating to the domain name. Before the domain name was registered, the Respondent did not carry on business under, and was not commonly known by, the domain name.
(4) The Respondent has no relationship with the legitimate owner of the rights relating to the trademark CC.OO., and has never had any rights in relation to that trademark. Nor has the Respondent been authorised under any agreement to use the trademark CC.OO. The Respondent has no legitimate use for the trademark.
Paragraph 4a(iii): Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It relies upon assertions to the following effect:
(1) The Respondent apparently registered the domain name under a pseudonym, being . In addition, the Respondent apparently supplied invented address details to the Registrar. These include the details "tuluntuo" and "fskldfj," which were provided in relation to the billing contact for the domain name. This constitutes evidence of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith: T Inc. v. Daniel Deamone, WIPO Case No. D2001-1066; Ceyx Technologies v. Ceyx.Com, WIPO Case No. D2001-0681.
(2) It appears that the Respondent is attempting to hide its identity, presumably with the intention of enabling the Respondent to sell the domain name or with the purpose of making it difficult for the Complainant to take legal action against the Respondent. The circumstances, including the distinctive nature of the Complainant�s trademark and the reputation of the Complainant, suggest that the Respondent knew of the Complainant�s trademark CC.OO. and did not reproduce it in the domain name by coincidence.
(3) The association of the domain name with a pornographic web site is sufficient evidence to show the unscrupulousness of the Respondent in the use of the domain name: Christian Salvesen plc v. Paul Dunbabin, WIPO Case No. D2001-0858; Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Mike Rodgerall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0568; National Football League Properties Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment Co., a/k/a , WIPO Case No. D2000-0118.
(4) The Respondent is not using the domain name other than so as to prevent the Complainant from making a legitimate use of its trade mark in a corresponding domain name, to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s trade mark CC.OO., or to force the Complainant to make an offer for the purchase of the domain name.
B. The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant�s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4a(i): Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The domain name in issue is . The relevant part of the domain name is "ccoo". The domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant�s trademark CC.OO. save for the character "." and the stylised features of the trade mark as registered. The Panel is thus satisfied that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CC.OO., which is registered in the name of the Complainant.
Paragraph 4a(ii): Respondent�s Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submitted evidence of its registration of the trademark CC.OO. in April 1999, in relation to various goods. The Complainant also submitted evidence showing that the Complainant is referred to by the name CC OO in the Spanish media and evidence of its website maintained at . Based on this evidence and the assertions of the Complainant, which were unchallenged by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the trade mark CC.OO. is well known in connection with the Complainant.
The Complainant made various assertions in relation to the Respondent�s rights or interests in the domain name, which are set out at paragraph 5A above. Those assertions were not challenged by the Respondent. The Panel takes all these matters into account and, in the absence of any response from the Respondent or any evidence to the contrary, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Paragraph 4a(iii): Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has sought to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Respondent in the registration of the domain name as well in the use of the domain name: see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Mushrooms, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The grounds advanced by the Complainant in support of its assertion that the Respondent has both registered and used the domain name in bad faith are summarised in paragraph 5A above, and the facts supporting these grounds are detailed in paragraph 4 above. In particular, the Panel notes the apparent pseudonym and invented address details used by the Respondent and accepts this as evidence relevant to the question of bad faith: Ceyx Technologies v. Ceyx.Com, WIPO Case No. D2001-0681; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Mushrooms (above).
The Panel takes all these matters into account and, in the absence of any response from the Respondent, finds that the Complainant has established that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel decides that the Complainant has proven each of the elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Panel therefore orders, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Annabelle Bennett SC
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2003\
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy