WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Prada S.A. v. Roberto Baggio Case No. D2009-1187 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Prada S.A. of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Studio Legale Jacobacci e Associati, Italy.
The Respondent is Roberto Baggio of Moscow, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2009. On September 8, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 2009, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 9, 2009 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, notifying that the Complaint was administratively deficient, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 9, 2009. 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” or “UDRP”), 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 11, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 1, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 2, 2009.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on October 13, 2009. 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 has for many years held a family of trade marks registered throughout the world including the word ‘Prada'. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 29, 2009. The Internet site that is operated under the disputed domain name at one time displayed pornographic material, some potentially involving minors. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes the classic example of use in bad faith commonly known as ‘porno-squatting'. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trade mark and the suffix ‘tube'. As the Complainant's mark is well-known, and as the suffix ‘tube' is a common suffix for Internet sites using video material, it is extremely likely that the disputed domain name would cause confusion in the minds of Internet users.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy in relation to its trade marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). The Panel finds that the Complainant has made such showing which the Respondent has not rebutted. In this case, the only use that the Respondent has made of the disputed domain name is for the conduct of his pornographic website, a use that cannot, for reasons outlined in the following section, be regarded as use in good faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The facts of this case constitute a classic example of ‘porno-squatting' in which confusion with a well-known trade mark is used to divert customers to a pornographic website for commercial purposes. ‘Porno-squatting' constitutes a paradigm case of registration in bad faith as the decisions of many panels have established, not least in relation to the PRADA trade mark in Prada S.A. v. Ms. Loredana Salvatori,WIPO Case No. D2007-0064.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP 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.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy