WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Juve & Camps, S.A. v. P1esoft Com
Case No. D2004-0472
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Juve & Camps, S.A., Barcelona, Spain, represented by Morgades, Del Rio y Renter, S.L., Spain.
The Respondent is P1esoft Com, Miami, Florida, United�States�of�America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a�China-C.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on June�29,�2004. On June�29,�2004, the Center transmitted by email to OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name) at issue. On July�2,�2004, OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July�12,�2004. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July�13,�2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was August�2,�2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August�8,�2004.
The Center appointed Zbynek Loebl as the Sole Panelist in this matter on August�13,�2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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 information is derived from the Complaint and the supporting evidence and materials submitted by the Complainant.
The Complainant, Juve & Camps, is a worldwide well-known company in the field of alcoholic beverages. The Complainant owns numerous trademark rights to JUVE CAMPS. In addition, the Complainant owns a number of trademarks practically identical to JUVE CAMPS, including JUVE AND CAMPS, JUVE Y CAMPS or JUVE & CAMPS. These trademarks are registered in a number of countries, including United�States�of�America. A list of trademarks including “JUVE CAMPS” is included in Annex IV of the Complaint.
In addition, as follows from documents included in Annexes I, V, VI and VII of the Complaint, the Complainant also owns corporate name JUVE & CAMPS, S.A.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name which does not resolve to any active website. The disputed domain name is identical to the terms JUVE CAMPS and is practically identical with the terms JUVE AND CAMPS, JUVE Y CAMPS or JUVE & CAMPS.
The disputed domain name has been for sale for a sum of 25,000 USD.
The Respondent has made no response to the Complainant’s allegations, despite being properly served with the Complaint.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks and the corporate name of the Complainant; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As evidence that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks and the corporate name of the Complainant, the Complainant enclosed evidence of multiple registrations for the trademarks JUVE CAMPS and other trademarks, with the connection “AND” between “JUVE” and “CAMPS,” in several languages and forms and valid in a number of countries for a number of years. Also, the Complainant produced evidence that its corporate name is Juve & Camps, S.A., which is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
As evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to the fact that the name JUVE CAMPS is well-known in Spain and in many other countries including the resident country of the Respondent, the USA, which makes it practically impossible that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without having knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. In addition, the disputed domain name is not active and it is for sale for a substantial sum of money (25,000 USD).
As evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was manifestly registered for the purpose of selling it for profit.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Since the Respondent has not filed any response and consequently has not contested any of the Complainant’s claims, this case shall be decided based on the allegations and documents submitted by the Complainant.
Paragraph�4(a) of the Policy lists three elements which Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical with trademark JUVE CAMPS and practically identical and therefore confusingly similar with the trademarks JUVE AND CAMPS, JUVE Y CAMPS and JUVE & CAMPS held by the Complainant. In addition, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the corporate name of the Complainant, Juve & Camps S.A.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence and argued convincingly that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. By not submitting a response, the Respondent failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, despite being properly notified of the Complaint. Based on arguments and evidence brought by the Complainant and described in sections 4 and 5 above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that, based on the evidence presented by the Complainant, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel considers as sufficient evidence of bad faith the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name corresponding to a well-known trademark in its resident country. It seems obvious that the Respondent knew or must have known the JUVE CAMPS trademark at the time it registered the domain name. In addition, the disputed domain name has been offered for sale for a substantial amount of money, while not making any active use of the disputed domain name. Such conduct has been recognized in many WIPO decisions as prima facie evidence of bad faith and clearly falls within the definition of bad faith under section�4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Zbynek Loebl
Sole Panelist
Dated: August�29,�2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy