WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Riva del Garda FiereCongressi S.p.A. v. Keyword Marketing, Inc.
Case No. D2007-1749
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Riva del Garda FiereCongressi S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Legale Perani, Italy.
The Respondent is Keyword Marketing, Inc., Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Capitoldomains, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2007 by e-mail and on November 29, 2007 in hard copy. On November 29, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Capitoldomains, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On December 7, 2007, Capitoldomains, LLC 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 December 10, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 30, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 31, 2007.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2008. 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 exhibition and conference managing company located in Trentino, Italy for over ten years.
The Complainant hosts and develops national and international events, including the ExpoRivaSchuh, a biannual international Shoe Fair. The ExpoRivaSchuh involves more than 1000 exhibitors (710 foreigners) and more than 1000 visitors every two years.
The Complainant has registered the trademark EXPORIVASCHUH in Italy under No. 941736 in international class 42. The trademark application was filed on May 4, 2000 and registration granted on October 21, 2004. Furthermore, the Complainant registered the domain name in 2001.
The Respondent registered the domain name on January 9, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark EXPORIVASCHUH and domain name in Italy, which is one of the biannual fairs organized by Complainant.
It alleges that the Respondent’s domain name is clearly identical with its trademark EXPORIVASCHUH on which the Complainant claims exclusive rights.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interests to the domain name since it has no registered trademark under its name and that the domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and Respondent is not commonly known as “Expo Riva Schuh”.
Finally, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering, since the domain name is linked to a parking page which sponsors other websites, even though it has been registered for nearly two years.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding, Complainant must prove each of the following requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
These three elements are considered hereinafter.
Also, under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, this Panel must “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety, and it is well established that the “.com” is disregarded for the purpose of comparison under the first element of the Policy.
Furthermore, the expression Riva is related to Riva Del Garda, a city in Italy, where the Complainant’s event convey buyers to the city every two years.
Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show the legitimate rights and interest in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Policy indicates that a registrant may have a legitimate interest in a domain name if it was making use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute.
The Respondent is in no apparent way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark EXPORIVASCHUH.
There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name as an individual, business or other organization.
The Respondent is apparently not conducting and has not shown any intention to conduct any legitimate commercial or non-commercial business under the Domain Name.
The Policy also indicates that a registrant may have a legitimate interest in a domain name if it is making fair use of the domain name. However there is no eveidence before the Panel of that here. Apparently the sole use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent was to divert Internet traffic to gain revenues. In sum, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate intersts in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the undisputed allegations of the Complainant, and noting the distinctive nature of the mark at issue, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights to the EXPORIVASCHUH trademark, showing that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was made in bad faith.
Also, based on the undisputed allegations, the use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent is in order to divert Internet users seeking information about the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
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 names be transferred to the Complainant.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 20, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy