WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Rino Greggio Argenterie S.p.A. v. MustN
Case No. D2006-0961
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Rino Greggio Argenterie S.p.A., Daniela Greggio, Selvazzano Dentro-Tencarola (Padua), Italy, represented by Studio Associato LCA, Italy.
The Respondent is MustN, Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July�31,�2006. On August�2,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August�4,�2006, Moniker Online Services, LLC 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 August�7,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August�27,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August�28,�2006.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberb�hler as the sole panelist in this matter on September�1,�2006. 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 Complainant is an internationally well-known producer of silver products founded in 1948 by Mr. Rino Greggio in Padua, Italy. It offers 20,000 articles to more than 6,000 customers worldwide and is the leading company in the silver manufacturing market.
The Complainant is the owner of several Italian and international trademarks for “GREGGIO” and “ARGENTERIE GREGGIO – il simbolo dell’argento”, as evidenced in Annex 3 to the Complaint. Moreover, the Complainant has registered the domain names and .
Respondent registered the Domain Name on April�21,�2002.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that (i) the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is fully identical with the Complainant’s trademark “GREGGIO”. The Complainant thus fulfills the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent uses the Domain Name to host a search engine service containing links to a variety of subjects such as “accounting”, “business”, “fashion”, etc.
There is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by “Greggio”, has made any non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name or has used the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under the circumstances described in part B above, a good faith use of the Domain Name by the Respondent is not conceivable. As Greggio is not a common Italian surname and the Complainant is the leading company in the silver manufacturing market, it must be assumed that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark.
In addition, the Respondent has been found to have engaged in bad faith conduct in several other cases filed under the Policy (Banca Carige S.p.A. v. MustN, Lee Yi, WIPO Case No. D2004-0445; Bioland e.V v. Lee Yi, WIPO Case No. D2002-1147; Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, NAF Case No. FA139720; Earth Forums c/o Rick Papaleo v. Lee Yi, NAF Case No. FA143702).
In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s conduct satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii), that the domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith” by Respondent.
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.
Tobias Zuberb�hler
Sole Panelist
Dated: September�15,�2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy