WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v. Whois ID Theft Protection
Case No.�D2006-1188
1. The Parties
The Complainant is The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, University Registry, The Old Schools, of Cambridge, United�Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Venner Shipley LLP, United�Kingdom of Great�Britain and Northern�Ireland.
The Respondent is Whois ID Theft Protection, of Grand Cayman, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dotster,�Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on September�14,�2006. On September�18,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Dotster, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September�18,�2006, Dotster, Inc. 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 September�22,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was October�12,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January�4,�2006.
The Center appointed David Perkins as the sole panelist in this matter on January�10,�2007. 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
4.1 The Complainant
Establishment of the University of Cambridge
4.1.1 The Complainant is “The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge”. It is a very well known educational institution, both in the United Kingdom and worldwide.
4.1.2 In 1318, the University of Cambridge received formal recognition as a Stadium Generale or Universitas from Pope John XXII. By Act of Parliament�13 Elizabeth Cap. 29 passed in the year 1571 the incorporation of the University and privileges thereon held under charter or by prescription were confirmed.
Cambridge University Press
4.1.3 The Cambridge University Press is the printing and publishing house of the University of Cambridge, whose right to print and sell “all manner of books” was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. It is the oldest Press in the world and has printed and published continuously since that date.
The CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Trademarks
4.1.4 The Complainant has the following registered trademarks for CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS:
Country
Reg. No.
Mark
Class(es)
Dates of Application / Registration
United Kingdom
1,218,942
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
18 May 1984 application
22 April 1988 registered
Republic of Korea
441,789
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
18 April 1998 application
18 February 1999 registered
Community Trade Mark
896,415
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9, 16 and 41
4 August 1998 application
7 March 2000 registered
Australia
408,483
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
16 May 1984 application
16 May 1984 registered
Brazil
812424425
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
29 September 1987 application
23 February 1988 registered
Canada
309,399
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
11 October 1984 application
20 December 1985 registration
Greece
78,247
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9 and 16
12 October 1984 application
17 February 1987 registered
Italy
704,788
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9 and 16
30 August 1984 application
12 May 1986 registered
Japan
2,113,323
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
26
6 June 1986 application
21 February 1989 registered
Mexico
343,858
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
6 June 1986 application
26 February 1988 registered
Spain
1,070,717
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
29 May 1984 application
6 May 1985 registered
United States of America
1,396,708
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
9 October 1984 application
10 June 1986 registered
India
863,772
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
2 July 1999 application
7 February 2005 registered
India
863,773
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
2 July 1999 application
7 February 2005 registered
Bangladesh
60,581
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
1 July 1999 (pending)
Bangladesh
60,582
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
1 July 1999 (pending)
Turkey
2000/014066
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9 and 16
11 July 2000 application
20 March 2002 registered
United States of America
2,766,728
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
11 June 2001 application
23 September 2003 registered
Singapore
T0212303A
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
14 August 2002 application
14 August 2002 registered
Singapore
T02123022
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
14 August 2002 application
14 August 2002 registered
Peoples Republic of China
3,321,898
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
27 September 2002 (pending)
Peoples Republic of China
3,321,897
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
27 September 2002 (pending)
Colombia
281,995
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
9
4 November 2003 application
11 June 2004 registered
Colombia
03/097,571
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
16
4 November 2004 (pending)
4.1.5 The Complainant has traded under the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS mark since the Charter granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The Complainant has produced illustrations of use of the mark, which is used either on its own or juxtaposition to the coat of arms of the University. Those illustrations are dated between 2003 and 2006.
4.1.6 By reference to the Cambridge University Press Annual Report and Accounts for the years ended December�31,�2000 to 2004, the Complainant’s turnover (��Sterling) in its publications – primarily, academic and educational publications – was:
Year
Worldwide Sales Turnover
2000
�119.8 Million
2001
�131.6 Million
2002
�127.8 Million
2003
�124.5 Million
2004
�128.4 Million
4.1.7 Those sales are made under the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark in Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and South America. By way of example, in 2001 almost three million books were sold in North America. For each of the years 2000 to 2004 inclusive sales by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS were in the top four titles for educational and English language teaching titles.
4.1.8 The Annual Report and Accounts also report the number of Awards for books published under the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS mark, which total no less than 218 Awards over that five year period. In addition, Cambridge University Press itself has won numerous awards and prizes including:
- First place in the UK Booksellers Award for Academic Distributor of the Year in 2000:
- The 2001 American Meteorological Society Award for outstanding services to meteorology by a corporation; and
- Six awards in 2003, including the Book Publishing Award and the Finishing Award.
4.1.9 The Complainant has provided examples of its advertising under the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark in both the United Kingdom [mail shots over the period 2004 to 2006] and in the United States of America [advertisements and flyers over the period 2005 to 2006]. The Complaint also lists the some 4,000 book fairs and conferences in relation to academic publications attended by the Complainant and held in many countries around the world over the 5 year period, 2001 to 2005.
4.2 The Respondent
In default of a Response, nothing is known of the Respondent, except to the extent of the Complainant’s enquiries into the Respondent’s activities, which are referred to in paragraphs�5.A.2 and 5.A.3 below.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 The Complainant contends that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph�4(a) of the Policy. The Complainant has provided particulars of its rights in the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark. The domain name in issue is identical to that trademark.
A.2 As to paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy – rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name – the Complainant points to the following:
The domain name in issue was created on May�18,�2004, by trademark of Georgetown, Grand Cayman. Shortly before the Complaint was filed, the registrant changed to Whois ID Theft Protection of West Bay, Grand Cayman.
The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent or its predecessor registrant of the domain name in issue to use the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademarks.
As demonstrated by its hundreds of years of use of the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark, the Complainant has the sole and exclusive right to use that mark. Consequently, the Respondent cannot have made or prepared to make any bona fide use of the domain name before receiving notice of this dispute.
The use made by the Respondent of the domain name in issue is in relation to a website, which offers links to websites of the Complainant’s competitors [e.g. Kluwer, Time Warner, Harper Collins, Random House, Simon & Schuster etc] and to other unrelated websites, including websites offering pornographic material. This, the Complainant, says is neither legitimate non-commercial nor fair use of the domain name. Rather, it will clearly cause consumers to believe mistakenly that there is a connection between that website and the Complainant.
A.3 As to paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy – registration and use in bad faith – the Complainant’s case is as follows:
The Complainant contends that there are no legitimate purpose for which the Respondent could have registered the domain name. Without knowing the Respondent’s motive in registering that domain name, given the notoriety of the Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark, it is reasonable to suppose that it was:
- either for the purpose of selling that domain name to the Complainant or to another party for a price greater than the costs of registering and maintaining the name;
- or for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the Complainant’s business by preventing the Complainant itself from registering its own trademark as a domain name.
As to the Respondent’s use of the domain in issue, the evidence points to an intention to confuse the public into believing that the website to which the domain name resolves is affiliated or otherwise connected with the Complainant. In this respect, the Complaint exhibits extracts from the Respondent’s website “” taken on June�1,�2006 and again on September�6,�2006. The former included a link to “watch gay porn – ”. The latter included a link to “Poetry Publishers”, which itself contained links to other sites, including “UK Publishers”, which itself then linked to publishers other than the Complainant, including Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins and others.
B. Respondent
As noted in paragraph�3 above, no Response has been submitted.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, paragraph�4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
- that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Policy, paragraph�4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue.
The Policy, paragraph�4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraphs�4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs�4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the trademark CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. The domain name in issue is identical to that trademark. Accordingly, the Complaint meets the requirements of paragraph�4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is nothing before the Panel to indicate that the Respondent could bring itself within any of the circumstances set out in paragraph�4(c) the Policy, nor demonstrate an other rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue. The CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark is so widely known that – absent consent or license from the University – it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have rights or a legitimate interests in the domain name. No such consent or license has been given: see, paragraph�5.A.2. above. Accordingly, the Complaint also satisfies the requirement of paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As to registration in bad faith, nothing is known of the Respondent. When the Center requested the registrar, Dotster Inc., to disclose the true name of the registrant, Dotster Inc. replied that as far as they know the name registered is not an identity shield and that Whois ID Theft Protection is the registrant. In the light of the widely known status of the Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark, it can only be concluded that registration of a domain name identical to that trademark was made in bad faith.
Again, given the well-known status of the Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS trademark, as the Panel remarked in the Telstra case [WIPO�Case No.�D2000-0003] it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate. Furthermore, the evidence of actual use submitted by the Complainant plainly satisfies paragraph�4(b)(iv) of the Policy in any event.
Accordingly, the Complaint meets the two requirements of paragraph�4(a)(iii) 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.
David Perkins
Sole Panelist
Dated: January�15,�2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy