WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Dell Inc. v. DI_4747995
Case No. D2007-0803
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Dell Inc., One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas, United States of America, represented by Field Fisher Waterhouse, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is DI_4747995, Brent, United States of America.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names
are registered with Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a PublicDomainR and MarkMonitor Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2007. On June 4, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a PublicDomainR and MarkMonitor Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On June 5, 2007, Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a PublicDomainR and MarkMonitor Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 June 29, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 19, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 23, 2007.
The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels, Charters Macdonald-Brown and John R. Keys, Jr. as panelists in this matter on August 28, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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, Dell Inc., is the world’s largest direct seller of computer systems, with revenues over the past four quarters of approximately $56 billion. Founded in 1984 by Michael Dell, Complainant first began using the name and trademark DELL in 1987. Since that time, Complainant has made extensive and prominent use of its DELL mark in connection with a wide range of computer-related goods and services, including offering its goods and services online through websites such as “”, “”, “”, “”, “”, and “”.
Complainant owns a number of European Community and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland trademark registrations for the word DELL, as well as the DELL logo, as used on computer-related products and services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that each of the 48 disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its registered DELL mark and variations thereof. It notes that each of the domain names contains the term “dell’ combined with one or more additional generic terms, many of which relate to the computer industry.
Complainant further maintains that there is no evidence that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence, Complainant asserts, that Respondent uses the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. According to Complainant, each of the disputed domain names resolves to pornographic material. Complainant also indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, and is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with Complainant.
To establish the requisite “bad faith” registration and use, Complainant contends that, by using the disputed domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such sites or of the products or services on such sites.
Complainant also asserts that Respondent has not given full disclosure of contact information to the registrar, insofar as Respondent only has provided a contact email address. Complainant notes that it sent a “cease and desist” letter to Respondent on May 18, 2007 (see Complaint, Annex F), but that such letter has not been answered.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Because Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, the Panel first considers whether Respondent has been given adequate notice of the proceeding. The evidence indicates that the Center sent the Complaint in electronic form to the e-mail addresses required under paragraph 2(a) (ii) of the Rules and in hard copy by courier service to the address provided in Respondent’s registration information. The Panel concludes that the Center discharged its responsibility under the Rules to notify Respondent of the Complaint and the administrative proceeding.
Where a respondent does not respond to the complaint, the panel must decide the dispute based upon the complaint. Rules, paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a). The panel is to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted, in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any principles of law the panel deems applicable. Rules, paragraph 15(a). Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, Respondent’s failure to answer entitles the Panel to “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements of its case in order to obtain the requested relief:
(i) Respondent’s 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) Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel considers each element in order.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that each of the 48 disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the mark DELL. As noted by Complainant, each of the names incorporates the DELL mark. The inclusion in the domain names of descriptive or generic matter, along with the top-level domain “.info” is of no legal significance. See, e.g., The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. Camp Creek Co., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0113; International Air Transport Association (IATA) v. Traverse Too and ASB (Schweiz),WIPO Case No. D2000-0192 (holding disputed domain names confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant, despite the addition of generic words).
The Panel further finds that Complainant, through its use of the DELL mark and ownership of registrations for such mark, has rights in the mark DELL.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the challenged domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by any of the domain names or that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the domain names, without intent to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. Indeed, the evidence indicates that each of the domain names resolves to pornographic material.
Further, given the Panel’s finding regarding the confusing similarity between each of the domain names and the DELL mark, it may not be held that Respondent is engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith. More particularly, the Panel concludes that by using each of the disputed names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such sites. In this regard, the Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names includes the term “dell” along with a generic or descriptive term that relates to computers, the computer industry, or to Complainant.1
Further to its finding of “bad faith” registration and use, the Panel observes that Respondent failed to provide full and complete contact information to the registrar.
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 following domain names be transferred to Complainant:
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Presiding Panelist
Charters Macdonald-Brown
Panelist
John R. Keys, Jr.
Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2007
1 For example, “The Dell Diamond” is the name given to the baseball stadium for the Round Rock Express, a minor league team. The stadium is sponsored by Complainant. Indeed, the Panel notes that Complainant owns a U.S. registration (No. 2834418) for the mark DELL DIAMOND, as used in connection with providing sports facilities.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy