WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dockwise Ltd. v. Yris Suriel Case No. D2009-1191 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Dockwise Ltd. of Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Strasburger & Price, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Yris Suriel of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. 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 9, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 9, 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 14, 2009 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 17, 2009. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 21, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 11, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 13, 2009.
The Center appointed Andrew Frederick Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 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 is a holding company for various operating companies that render worldwide services under the DOCKWISE trade name and mark. The operating companies include Dockwise Shipping B.V. and Dockwise Transport B.V., both private limited companies organized in the country of the Netherlands. These companies have been providing maritime transport, construction, installation, manufacture, engineering and design services in commerce, under the names and trademarks DOCKWISE, DYT DOCKWISE YACHT TRANSPORT & Design, and DOCKWISE & Design. The Complainant's predecessors in interest commenced use of the trademark DOCKWISE in 1994, the trademark DYT DOCKWISE YACHT TRANSPORT & Design in 2001 and DOCKWISE & Design in 2007. The Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registrations for these marks, being respectively No. 2,287,664 dated October 19, 1999; No. 2,593,932 dated July 16, 2002; and No. 3,554,343 dated December 30, 2008. In addition, the Complainant owns various Benelux and Community Trademark Registrations for these marks.
On or about August 4, 2009 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. At least as early as September 16, 2009 the disputed domain name was used as the URL for a website headed “Dockwisesgroup Ltd Bermuda”. The various pages of that website contain the Complainant's trademarks, and pictures and text taken from the Complainant's website. Links on that website redirect users to pages of a website at the URL “”. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark in its entirety, pluralizes it and adds a generic term (“groups”). The inclusion of the generic term does not defeat the similarity created by the use of the trademark in the domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the domain name to confuse users into believing that the website to which it resolves is associated or affiliated with the Complainant. That website includes unauthorized copies of pictures and text taken from the Complainant's website, and the Complainant's trademarks. The Respondent has no demonstrable legitimate uses of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. The Respondent registered the domain name despite having no rights in the DOCKWISE trademark, which preceded the domain name registration, and without the permission of the Complainant. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website, and is deriving income therefrom. 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 incorporates fully the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark, together with the letter “s” and the word “groups”. The distinctive part of the domain name is DOCKWISE, the Complainant's trademark. The additions of the letter “s” and the descriptive word “groups” do not lessen the inevitable confusion of the domain name with the Complainant's trademark that results from the domain name's incorporation of the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark. This Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not associated with the Complainant or any business conducted by the Complainant under its DOCKWISE trademark, and has not been licensed by the Complainant to use the DOCKWISE trademark. The Respondent has not asserted that it has any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's DOCKWISE trademark it is difficult to conceive of any such rights or interests. This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has been using the DOCKWISE trademark, and the DYT DOCKWISE YACHT TRANSPORT & Design and the DOCKWISE & Design trademarks, since well before the disputed domain name was registered. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent to the contrary, the obvious conclusion is that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant's trademarks. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name as the URL for a website that falsely purports to be a website of, or authorised by, the Complainant. This use of the domain name is an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to that website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site (that being evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew Frederick Christie
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy