WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-1871 for panathinaikos.com

 

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme, Green Team S.A. v. P

Case No. D2007-1871

 

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme, of Greece, and Green Team S.A., of Greece (the “Complainants”), represented by Karageorgiou & Associates, Greece.

The Respondent is P, of Greece (the “Respondent”), represented by Lambadarios Law Offices, Greece.

 

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name

is registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.

 

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2007.

On December 18, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On December 18, 2007, Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide 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 Registrant and the technical and administrative contact.

In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 10, 2008. 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 sent the Complaint and a formal Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent on January 15, 2008, by courier and e-mail, using the contact details listed in the Registrar’s WHOIS database. In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 4, 2008. The Response was duly filed with the Center on February 2, 2008.

The Center appointed Dr. Foteini Papiri as the Sole Panelist in this matter on February 12, 2008. The Panelist 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. Thus, the Panel finds that it was properly constituted.

Notification of the Appointment of the Administrative Panel and the Projected Decision Date were sent by e-mail to the Complainants and to the Respondent on February 12, 2008, specifying the decision date of February 26, 2008.

The registration agreement for the domain name at issue has been done and executed in English by Respondent and Registrar, the Complainants have submitted their Complaint in English and the Respondent has submitted his Response in English. In the absence of any special circumstances for the Panel to determine otherwise, as provided in the Rules, Paragraph 11, the language of this proceeding is English.

The Panel, sharing the assessment of the Center, independently finds that the Complaint was filed in accordance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, and that payment of the fees was properly made.

 

4. Factual Background

Because the Complaint is formally in compliance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, and to the extent that the Complainants’ contentions and documents enclosed with the Complaint have not been contested, the Panel finds the following facts as having been sufficiently established:

The First Complainant is Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme, a Greek Football Soci�t� Anonyme with substantial reputation in Greece and abroad in connection with football activities, as well as the owner of domain name registration (Complaint, Annex 11).

The Second Complainant is Green Team S.A., a Soci�t� Anonyme responsible for the licensing, commercial exploitation and distribution of Panathinaikos’ official products. The Second Complainant is also the operator of the official online store , where the original merchandise of Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme is distributed.

Over the years, supporters and the wider public have come to recognize Panathinaikos Football Club in connection with major national and international athletic events and marks incorporating the word “Panathinaikos” in the context of football events and activities as indicating a product or service originating with the Panathinaikos Football Club and/or its affiliates or group of companies.

According to WHOIS database records furnished by the Complainants, the record for the disputed domain name

was created on December 17, 1998 (Complaint, Annex 6).

 

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that: (1) the domain name

is identical or confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainants have rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In particular, the First Complainant contends that it is established as a Football Soci�t� Anonyme as of July 30, 1979 with the name “Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos – Podosfairiki Anonimi Etaireia” and the distinctive title “P.A.O. P.A.E.” (Complaint, Annex 1, containing reference to the First Complainant’s name in connection with amendment to its articles of association). The First Complainant also contends that Greek Football Soci�t�s Anonymes have the right to use the unregistered mark of the Athletic Club of Amateurs from which they were created by virtue of Article 66 of Law 2725/1975 [sic]. The First Complainant contends that Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos – Football Soci�t� Anonyme was formed from Panathinaikos Athletic Club of Amateurs, which was established as early as 1908 and bears the unregistered trademark consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the number 1908, an image of which is attached as Annex 2 to the Complaint. By virtue of this, the First Complainant contends that it is entitled to unregistered trademark protection in connection with all football athletic activities and relevant events nationally and internationally.

The Second Complainant contends that it owns a trademark registration for a figurative mark in Greece, containing the image of a shamrock followed by the text “1908 PANATHINAIKOS F.C.”, registration No. 127698, registered by virtue of decision 12003/95 of the Administrative Marks Tribunal, valid from July 19, 1995, renewed on June 27, 2005 for a further period of ten years from July 19, 2005 in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 33 and 34 (Complaint, Annex 5), transferred to the Second Complainant on March 9, 2007 by the initial owner of the registration “TRIFILLI SOCI�T� ANONYME OF CLOTHING PRODUCTS AND GIFTS”, which carries the distinctive title “TRIFILLI PANATHINAIKOS F.C. 1908”.

As a result, the Complainants contend that the domain name

is identical to the unregistered trademark consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the number 1908, which Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme, the First Complainant, is entitled to use in connection with all football activities and events of its football team, and also identical to the word portion of the registered trademark containing the image of a shamrock followed by the text “1908 PANATHINAIKOS F.C.”, obtained by the Second Complainant.

The Complainants contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The Complainants contend that the Respondent is not generally known under the domain name, does not possess rights in the word “Panathinaikos”, does not use the domain name for any legitimate, non-commercial or equitable purpose or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services and the Complainants have not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register the domain name or use the aforementioned marks in their entirety or portions thereof.

The Complainants also contend that the domain name was registered in bad faith, as it is highly unlikely that the domain name, corresponding to the most meaningful portion of Complainants’ marks, was registered without prior knowledge of the marks. The Complainants contend that the Respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of preventing the Complainants from registering and using the domain name. The Complainants contend that, by using the domain name, the Respondent is trying to create confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location, free ride on the Complainants’ reputation and, by concealing his true identity, the Respondent is engaging in abusive practices targeting the reputation of football team players (Complaint, Annex 14).

B. Respondent

The Respondent in his Response contends the following:

The Respondent contends that he registered the domain name with the primary goal of developing a genuine supporter website in order to provide information on the history, latest news and scores of the Panathinaikos football, basketball and volleyball teams without wishing to gain any money or other benefits related to this activity. The Respondent contends that the word “Panathinaikos” is not a registered trademark/service mark, but is rather a generic/descriptive term to reflect the meaning “all-Athenian”. The Respondent also contends that common law rights cannot be established in the word “Panathinaikos” due to the descriptiveness of the term in the Greek language and the lack of protection of common law rights in Greece and argues that the word “Panathinaikos” is not being exclusively used by the Complainants.

The Respondent further contends that the domain name

is not identical or confusingly similar to the Second Complainant’s registered trademark, since links to the teams’ official websites are provided in the Respondent’s website to avoid confusion.

The Respondent argues that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, as the Respondent registered, developed and continuously used the supporter website since 1998 in a way that demonstrates a bona fide offering of non-commercial services without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, to tarnish the trademark/service mark at issue or to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

The Respondent contests that he attempted to conceal his identity, he, on the contrary, contends that certain details were concealed in order to safeguard his personal privacy. The Respondent argues that he was not aware of any exclusive rights that the Complainants might have alleged in the name “Panathinaikos”.

In any event, the Respondent contends that the domain name was not registered for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to the Complainants, or for the purpose of preventing the Complainants from using the name in a corresponding domain name or disrupting the Complainants’ business, as the Respondent is not a competitor of the Complainants.

On the basis of the aforementioned contentions and pursuant to Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, the Respondent requests the Panel to declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

6. Discussion and Findings

This dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The registration agreement, pursuant to which the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint was registered, incorporates the Policy.

The Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, because the Complainants assert, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Under Rules, Paragraph 10(a), the Panel is allowed, inter alia, to independently visit the Internet in order to obtain additional light in this default proceeding. On February 18, 2008, the Panel attempted to visit Respondent’s website. The domain name

opened to a website offering news and other services in relation to, inter alia, the First Complainant’s athletic activities and incorporating several links directing visitors to, inter alia, third parties’ websites.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The present dispute over the domain name

is put forward by multiple Complainants, Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme and Green Team S.A.

Although neither the Policy nor the Rules provide for multiple Complainants, there is no provision explicitly excluding a single Complaint brought by multiple related parties with a common interest in the disputed domain name. While the invoked trademark registration concerns Greece and the owner of this registration is specified as the Second Complainant, the Complainants’ representative states: “[…] both companies have a common interest to protect their rights and legitimate interests and assure the international presence of the football team of Panathinaikos and the commercial exploitation and promotion of their products related to the football team in foreign countries and in Greece.” Furthermore, the remedy requested by both Complainants is the transfer of the domain name.

In light of the fact that the provisions of the Policy and the Rules do not exclude a single Complaint brought by multiple related parties with a common interest in the disputed domain name nor do they provide guidance as to when subsidiaries, associated companies or affiliates should, or must, join in a Complaint, the Panel accepts the designation of both Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme and Green Team S.A. as Complainants.1

The Panel will accordingly proceed to examine the question whether the Complainants have rights in the trademarks and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to these trademarks.

In this context, as the First Complainant bases its claim on the unregistered trademark consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the number 1908 (Complaint, Annex 2), it is necessary to examine whether the Policy applies to unregistered trademarks and whether the First Complainant has established such rights.

It is well-established among Panelists that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the presence of “[…] a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”, without expressly restricting the scope of application of the Policy to registered trademarks or service marks.2

Unregistered trademarks are protected under Greek law (Articles 13-15 of Law 146/1914, Foundedakis, T., The conflict of distinctive identifiers, Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 2003, p. 6-12, Minoudis, G., World Trademark Report Yearbook 2007, p. 134). Necessary requirements for such protection are distinctiveness of the sign at issue or in the absence of distinctiveness, distinctiveness acquired through use of the sign or establishment of the unregistered trademark in transactions as a trademark in a way that a significant part of the relevant sector of the public is aware that the mark serves to distinguish goods or services (Foundedakis, T., ibid, p. 53-54, Minoudis, G., ibid, p. 134).

It has not been contested by Respondent that the First Complainant was established as early as 30.07.1979 as a Soci�t� Anonyme with the name “Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Podosfairiki Anonimi Etaireia” and the distinctive title “P.A.O. P.A.E.”. Equally, it has not been contested by Respondent that the First Complainant is making extensive use of the sign consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the number 1908, the year the Panathinaikos Athletic Club of Amateurs was created. Supporters and members of the wider public have come to recognize this in football activities and events as originating from the First Complainant. The Respondent himself incorporated part of this sign in the disputed domain name, i.e. the word “Panathinaikos”, in order to reflect this very connection of the word “Panathinaikos” with the First Complainant in the context of football activities.

The Respondent argues that the word “Panathinaikos” is descriptive to designate the meaning “Pan-Athenian”. However, the word “Panathinaikos” in masculine and singular form used in connection with football activities and events is recognizable by supporters and the wider public as originating from the First Complainant’s activities and, therefore, being a distinctive identifier associated with the First Complainant’s services in the football business. Distinctiveness of the term in these circumstances is clear. The Respondent himself is making use of the word “Panathinaikos” in the context of football activities and events to refer to the First Complainant’s activities.

Even though more relevant under the second and third element of the Policy, the Panel notes that the use of the First Complainant’s distinctive title and sign predates Respondent’s registration, as Respondent himself concedes: “In 1998 I registered the domain name

through the domain name registration company VERIO / Melbourne IT. My goal was to develop a website which would feature -from the team’s supporters’ point of view- the history, the latest news and scores of the team for all sports (including basketball, football, volleyball etc.), since I have been all my life a supporter of the Athens based sports club, named ‘panathinaikos’.” (Response, p. 3). This statement proves clearly and unequivocally that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the First Complainant and the use of its sign in connection with football activities.

Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the Second Complainant owns a trademark registration for a figurative mark in Greece, containing the image of a shamrock followed by the text “1908 PANATHINAIKOS F.C.”, registration No. 127698, registered by virtue of decision 12003/95 of the Administrative Marks Tribunal, valid from July 19, 1995, renewed on June 27, 2005 for a further period of ten years from July 19, 2005 in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 33 and 34 (Complaint, Annex 5), transferred to the Second Complainant on March 9, 2007 by the initial owner of the registration “TRIFILLI SOCI�T� ANONYME OF CLOTHING PRODUCTS AND GIFTS”, which carries the distinctive title “TRIFILLI PANATHINAIKOS F.C. 1908”.

The Respondent also contends that the term “Panathinaikos” is not exclusively used by the Complainants. The first limb of the test under the Policy requires that the disputed domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. In other words, the Complainant is not required to be the exclusive user of the mark, not even the owner of the trademark or service mark. It has been accepted in other Administrative Panel Decisions that “[…] a company related as subsidiary or parent to the registered holder of a mark may be considered to have rights in the mark”.3 The Panel concurs with the view expressed in other Administrative Panel Decisions that the Complainant may through its affiliation to the owner of the trademark or service mark registration have demonstrated rights in the registered trademark or service mark4 and that the Policy does not require that Complainants have exclusive rights in the trademark or service mark.5

In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the unregistered trademark consisting of the name “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the number 1908 and the registered trademark containing the image of a shamrock followed by the text “1908 PANATHINAIKOS F.C.” respectively.

In respect of the question whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to these trademarks, it is important to point out that it is established practice to disregard the top-level part of the domain name, when assessing whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark at issue, as this is dictated by the very nature of the Domain Name System, according to which the inclusion of a gTLD or a ccTLD is necessary to distinguish one namespace from others.

The domain name

consists of the term “Panathinaikos”, which constitutes the most significant meaningful portion of the Complainants’ trademarks, incorporated in the domain name in its entirety.

The Complainants, and in particular in the case of the Second Complainant its predecessor in title, have made extensive use of both the unregistered and the registered trademark in connection with athletic activities and events. As a consequence, the public has come to perceive goods and services that are offered under these marks or a variation of the same as emanating from or being endorsed by or affiliated with the Complainants. The use of the most meaningful portion of Complainants’ marks “Panathinaikos” is a variation, which the average consumer would expect the Complainants or their affiliates to use in connection with the mark consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the year 1908 or the mark consisting of the green shamrock and the words “1908 Panathinaikos F.C.” to identify their goods or services, especially since the Complainants are primarily using these marks in connection with goods and services in the athletics business, including football activities and services.

The incorporation of the term “Panathinaikos” in the Respondent’s domain name attempts to create confusion in the minds of the consumers with the Complainants’ operation of athletic activities. Given the nature of the services that Complainants provide, the use of the term “Panathinaikos” does not only fail to distinguish the domain name from the marks, but also reinforces the association of the domain name with the marks. In that sense, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consumers, who expect the domain name

to resolve to a website owned by, operated by or affiliated with the Complainants.

The Administrative Panel finds that the domain name

is confusingly similar to the unregistered mark consisting of the word “Panathinaikos”, the green shamrock and the year 1908 and the registered mark consisting of the green shamrock and the words “1908 Panathinaikos F.C.”, in which the Complainants have proven to have rights, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainants have a strong presence in the athletics business and the first use of the marks by the First Complainant and the Second Complainant’s predecessor in title predates the domain name registration. Because both the use of the unregistered mark began and the trademark registration, as set out above, was issued before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the First Complainant and the Second Complainant through its predecessor in title have prior trademark rights.

The Complainants never granted, tacitly or otherwise, the Respondent any license, rights, permission or authorization to use the marks or portions thereof or incorporate these or portions thereof in a domain name registration. There is no business link between the Complainants and the Respondent, the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainants and there is no sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation between them that would justify the Respondent registering a domain name that wholly incorporates the Complainants’ marks.

There is no evidentiary support that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name. Such finding requires evidence that members of the public associate the domain name with the Respondent alone rather than expect the domain name to resolve to a website that may be linked and affiliated with, endorsed and/or sponsored by the Complainants.

Currently, the domain name

opens to a website offering news and other services in relation to, inter alia, the First Complainant’s athletic activities and incorporating several links directing visitors to, inter alia, third parties’ websites.

Although the Respondent contends that he is making a legitimate, bona fide, non-commercial and fair use of the domain name, the Panel notes that there is no express disclaimer in the Respondent’s site as to the lack of link, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s site. The absence of express disclaimers is not cured by links to official sites operated by the football, basketball and volleyball teams respectively, as the unaware visitor may well perceive the website as functioning as a portal website directing visitors to individual official websites specific for each sport, without necessarily leading the unaware visitor to deduce that the Respondent’s website is merely a supporter website. Furthermore, nothing in the domain name itself seems to suggest that the website is operated by a supporter of the team or as a supporter site. Supporters or members of the wider public typing

expect the URL to resolve to Complainants’ website.

Respondent provided the Panel with older screenshots of the operated website, where a product, “VITAL Q10”, is featured on the website. Although the Respondent concedes that this product was promoted in the website, he argues that this was done without commercial gain, presenting the Panel with a letter by the CEO of the importing company where a statement to this effect is made (Response, Annex 15). The screenshots provided contradict this, however, as the text “Web page Sponsor” is visible under the featured product. This very finding also contradicts the Respondent’s allegation that he has never looked for a sponsor (Response, p. 8).

The most meaningful part of the Complainants’ marks is incorporated in the domain name, the First Complainant’s unregistered mark and portions of the Second Complainants’ registered mark are reproduced in Respondent’s website and the Respondent appears to have no corporate, partnership or fictitious business name or business listing registration under the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is entitled to operate a genuine non-commercial fan site. However, such right does not extend to the use of a fan site for commercial purposes. The promotion of sponsored goods on a website constitutes such commercial purpose. A commercial purpose does not always require an immediate commercial gain for the Respondent; sometimes it may include for example an investment in anticipation of future gain, a means of enhancing the potential commercial value of a website, or an action taken in the interest of another commercial operation in which the registrant of the disputed domain name may have an interest. An assessment is required having regard to all of the circumstances of the case. Here, Respondent is operating what it claims to be a genuine fan site on which a number of links appear, one of which at least is described (in Greek) as a “Web page Sponsor”. This product, “VITAL Q10”, appears to have been removed from the website only after formal commencement of the Complaint. This is not in Respondent’s favour, suggesting as it does some awareness of the potential damage done to its case by the presence of such product. The Respondent has produced a letter from the CEO of the importing company to the effect that the product was posted by the Respondent “free of charge”. Even accepting at face value the statement that there was “no charge” levied by the Respondent for this, the Panel is simply not persuaded in the circumstances that there is no commercial element to this decision. Nor is the Panel persuaded that the presence of such “sponsors” is sufficiently incidental that they may be disregarded for purposes of the present analysis. The Panel further notes the presence on the Respondent’s website of a “link” to a number of websites pushing content of an apparently commercial nature, including links to a number of travel and hotel related advertisements or services.

The operation and genuine, legitimate, bona fide, non-commercial and fair use of a supporter website entails circumstances that are not present or have not been sufficiently proven in Respondent’s case. The overall impression of the operated website, as opposed to its alleged Internet Google listing (Response, Anne 14), does not distinguish it as a clear and unequivocal supporter/fan site, express disclaimers are not present in the website, links to official websites do not conclusively cure such absence for the aforementioned reasons, likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ marks as to origin, association, endorsement or affiliation is not avoided through use of the most meaningful parts of the Complainants’ unregistered and registered trademarks in the domain name and in the website itself and lack of commercial links is not established through, inter alia, promotion of products on the website.

The Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent cannot express his alleged love and support to his favourite team in alternative ways without taking unfair advantage of Complainants’ reputation and goodwill and without incorporating the most meaningful portions of the Complainants’ unregistered and registered marks in the domain name or the website itself.

Therefore, the Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove registration and use in bad faith. Paragraphs 4(b)(i)-(iv) of the Policy contain a non-exhaustive list of circumstances, which shall constitute evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Under these circumstances and as can be seen from the evidence submitted, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, prior to the registration of the domain name, which wholly incorporates the most meaningful portion of the Complainants’ unregistered and registered marks, had actual knowledge of the marks. This is evident from the Respondent’s statement that he registered the domain name to develop a website related to “the Athens based sports club, named “panathinaikos” [sic]” (Response, p. 3), the reproduction of the First Complainant’s unregistered mark in its entirety and portions of the Second Complainant’s registered mark in the Respondent’s website, to which the disputed domain name currently resolves and the inclusion of news relating to, inter alia, the First Complainant in the context of football activities. (Response, Annexes 12a-12l).

As mentioned above, the domain name

currently resolves to a website offering news and other services in relation to, inter alia, the First Complainant’s athletic activities and incorporating several links directing visitors to, inter alia, third parties’ websites.

The Complainants contend that the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owners of the marks from reflecting these in a corresponding domain name pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel notes that Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainants to prove that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Complainants did not discharge the burden of proving the requirements of Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.

The Complainants also argue that the provision of false contact details by the Respondent in an attempt to conceal his true identity is indicative of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has presented the Panel with the reasons why this was done, as the provision of accurate details in the context of operating a website could result in spam e-mails and privacy violations, which the Respondent aimed to avoid. The Respondent made sure that he had control of e-mail directed to reach him and even though WHOIS contact details appeared to be inaccurate, communication with him could be established through the e-mail included in his website.

The Panel is of the opinion that the provision of inaccurate contact details, by and of itself, is not sufficient to merit a finding of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith without the presence of further conclusive factors. It has been argued that providing inaccurate contact information violates Paragraph 2 of the Policy, which requires a Registrant to represent that the statements it “made in [its] Registration Agreement are complete and accurate”.6 In recent years, however, the use of privacy services has been noted in connection with domain name registrations under legitimate circumstances.7

The Complainants also contend that, by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Respondent contends that this is not the case.

After careful review of the submitted evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent’s use of the domain name does neither openly nor expressly establish the lack of any link with, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website by the Complainants. The existence of links to the official websites of the football, basketball and volleyball teams can easily be inferred by the occasional visitor to be indicative of the function of the domain name

as a portal site to the individual official websites of each sport. The Respondent himself produced evidence of a product featured on the website (Annexes 12b-e and 12g-i), but failed to present a consistent explanation as to why the sign “Web page sponsor” was included under the featured product.

Under these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainants’ showing that the use of the domain name creates a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consumers as to the website ownership, origin, affiliation or endorsement in a way that may be prejudicial to the Complainants’ goodwill and reputation associated with their respective marks, the most meaningful portion of which is incorporated in the domain name registration.

The Respondent requested the Panel to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the Complainants. Under the circumstances of this case, it is clear that the Complaint has not been brought in bad faith, nor was it brought to primarily harass the domain-name holder. Therefore, and in view also of the outcome, the Panel declines to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this case.

For all the aforementioned reasons, the Administrative Panel finds that the Complainants have proven Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Consequently, all the prerequisites for cancellation or transfer of the domain name are fulfilled, according to the remedies available under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

The Complainants have requested transfer of the domain name.

 

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 Complainants, Panathinaikos Athlitikos Omilos - Football Soci�t� Anonyme and Green Team S.A.

Dr. Foteini Papiri
Sole Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2008

1 See Royal Bank of Canada, Dain Rauscher Corporation and Dain Rauscher Incorporated v. RBCD Ain Rauscher,WIPO Case No. D2001-1236 and the cases cited therein.

2 See British Broadcasting Corporation v. Jaime Renteria,WIPO Case No. D2000-0050, MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading,WIPO Case No. D2000-0205. Emmanuel Vincent Seal trading as Complete Sports Betting v. Ron Basset,WIPO Case No. D2002-1058.

3 Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Estrategia Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Videoserpel, Ltd. v. Party Night Inc., a/k/a Peter Carrington,WIPO Case No. D2003-0796, under 6(i).

4 Miele, Inc. v. Absolute Air Cleaners and Purifiers,WIPO Case No. D2000-0756, under 6.A.

5 Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes,WIPO Case No. D2000-0993, under 6 where it is stated: “It is also abundantly clear from the evidence filed by the Respondent that there are literally dozens of other entities trading under and by reference to precisely the same name. Accordingly, the Complainant’s rights in respect of the name are by no means exclusive. […] In this Panel’s view the test under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, which makes no mention of ‘exclusive rights’ is or ought to be a relatively easy test for a Complainant to satisfy, its purpose simply being to ensure that the Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place.”

6 “Maintaining that false contact information in the WHOIS records (which can easily be updated at any time) after registration constitutes bad faith use of the domain name because it prevents a putative complainant from identifying the registrant and investigating the legitimacy of the registration”. Action Instruments, Inc. v. Technology Associates,WIPO Case No. D2003-0024.

7 The iFranchise Group v. Jay Bean / MDNH, Inc. / Moniker Privacy Services [23658],WIPO Case No. D2007-1438.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy