The Complainants are “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH of Gräfelfing, Germany and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH of Seeshaupt, Germany, represented by Beetz & Partner, Germany.
The Respondent is PrivacyP/Tech Domain Services Private Limited of The Netherlands and Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicR (“Directi Internet”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2010. On August 9, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 11, 2010, Directi Internet 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 August 12, 2010, providing the new registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 16, 2010.
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 August 17, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 6, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2010.
The Center appointed Mr. David H. Tatham as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2010. 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
Between them the Complainants are the owners of a number of trade marks which consist of or contain the words “Dr. Martens” and which are registered for, inter alia, footwear, clothing or retail services.
The Complainants claim that DR. MARTENS is a famous international brand name for footwear, clothing and accessories. The Complainants are particularly renowned for their distinctive shoes and boots which were first sold in the late 1950’s and which are now available throughout the world.
The Complainants’ attorneys sent a warning letter to the listed owner of the disputed domain name, but no reply was received.
Absent any Response, the Panel has no information about the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is merely a combination of the descriptive element “shoes” together with the characterizing name “doctormartin” and, since “shoes” is clearly descriptive, consumers will pay greater attention to the rest of the name i.e., doctormartin. The Complainants further contend that this element is almost identical to their trade marks consisting of the name DR. MARTENS. The vowel “e” may have been amended to “i”, but these two letters are both phonetically highly similar and are not sufficiently different to create any distinctiveness between the trade marks and the disputed domain name. In addition, “DR. MARTENS” and “doctormartin” are phonetically extremely close and highly similar. “Dr.” is a common abbreviation for “doctor” in many countries. Consequently, the two names are extremely close with respect to their phonetic and written form as well as in meaning and are therefore confusingly similar.
The Complainants also contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This is because the domain name is used to host a parked website which features links to advertisements for the sale of footwear, on websites which have not been authorized or approved by themselves as well as on websites that refer to its competitors. The Complainants further contend that this use is likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing that the Respondent is sponsored by, affiliated to, or has the approval of the owners, licensees or customers of the original DR. MARTENS products. This, it is contended, is a false representation and is not the case. The Complainants further contend that the Respondent is not only passing off their goodwill and reputation in the DR. MARTENS trade marks and the DR MARTENS name, but it is also making an unfair and illegitimate commercially unfair use of the disputed domain name with the clear intention of commercial gain and to mislead customers as well as to tarnish the Complainants’ trade and service marks.
The Complainants contend that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainants’ rights in the mark DR. MARTENS for, not only is this name widely and well-known, but the Respondent has combined its phonetic equivalent – within the disputed domain name – with the word “shoes” which precisely describes the Complainants’ principle products. It is further contended that the Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ name and trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, and that the Respondent is profiting from the goodwill in the Complainants’ trade marks by accruing click-through fees for each redirected and confused Internet user. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that a complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have produced ample evidence of their ownership of registrations for the mark DR. MARTENS in various countries. There were filed with the Complaint copies of 12 trade mark registrations in Australia, Canada, United States of America and the European Union. These marks are mostly for the name DR. MARTENS but some of the marks consist of the design of either a shoe or the sole of a shoe on which the words “Dr Martens” appear. All of these registrations are currently in force, and they were registered at various dates between 1983 and 2002. They included two Community trade marks, both of which were registered in 1996, and both claiming the seniority of numerous earlier marks in other European countries. However in Canadian trade mark No. 420485 the word “martens” is disclaimed. The existence of these trade marks has not been contested by the Respondent. Given the fame and notoriety of the Complainants – also uncontested – it is more than likely that these 12 registrations are but a small part of the Complainants’ portfolio of trade mark registrations for DR. MARTENS.
The disputed domain name contains the term “doctormartin”, which only differs from the Complainants’ mark by substituting an “i” for the “e”, by spelling out in full the word “doctor” instead of its common abbreviation “dr”, and by leaving out the “s” in the trade mark.
The term “doctormartin” does not contain a space, as the trade mark does but spaces are not permitted in domain names. Also, it was said in Colgate – Palmolive Company v. Charles Kasinga, NAF Claim No. 94203 that “the absence of the space between the words is not significant in determining similarity”. The Panel finds this to be a similar case of “typosquatting” and does not find that such difference dispels confusing similarity.
The addition of the word “shoes” to the disputed domain name does nothing to alleviate the possibility of confusion, and in any case “shoes” are precisely what the Complainants mainly sell and for what their name and trade mark are principally known. Indeed, the name “Dr. Martens” is well-known, for the Complainants filed a dossier of evidence to this effect, including one article which commences with the following sentence: “Few Brands can boast the cultural potency and rich heritage in which each new pair of Dr. Martens boots is steeped.”
Consequently, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade mark DR. MARTENS, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is therefore proved. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is well established that the onus is on a complainant to first prove that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, but that once the said complainant has made out a prima facie case, the burden of production on this shifts to the respondent to rebut it. The burden of proof however remains with the complainant. See, for example, Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc. WIPO Case No. D2000-0270. In this instance, the Panel is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out.
In paragraph 4(c) of the Policy there are set out three circumstances which, if present, could demonstrate that a respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, and it is well established that this list is not exhaustive. However in this case the Respondent has filed no response so it has not attempted to rebut the Complainants’ prima facie case.
The Complainants annexed a copy of the Respondent’s website to the Complaint, which gives every appearance of being a click-through website designed to lure an unsuspecting or unobservant user into believing it is the portal through which he or she could obtain clothing, handbags, footwear and 6 different types of shoe and a variety of services ranging from airline tickets to real estate training. In the nature of such sites by clicking on any of the links, the owner of the site receives a fee therefrom. This is hardly a legitimate use of the disputed domain name, and it was said in Dr. Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. ADomain privacy/Transure Enterprise Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2009-1253 that diverting Internet traffic to third party websites of direct competitors of the Complainants can even be considered to be misleading and damaging to the Complainants’ trade marks. Coincidentally, that case involved a domain name which was very similar to the disputed domain name in this case, namely . The Complainants have confirmed that the Respondent is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by or associated with themselves and that its use of the disputed domain name is without their approval.
In the absence of any communication from the Respondent, the Panel has accepted the Complainants’ case and has concluded that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Consequently, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is proved. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which are evidence that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
The registration of the disputed domain name appears to have been made primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainants’ business, and to be an intentional attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to” the Respondent’s website. The latter falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Moreover, the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainants’ trade mark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name suggests opportunistic bad faith registration. See Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite,WIPO Case No. D2001-1070, where the word “pokémon” was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith. See also BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel,WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue, because of the widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trade marks in question, the inclusion of the entire trade mark in the domain name, and the similarity of products implied by addition of telecommunications services suffix, and suggested knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trade marks.
In view of the above, the Panel has concluded that, since the Respondent likely knew of the Complainants’ rights in the DR. MARTENS trade mark, and since the Respondent had no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Once again it is worth pointing out that the Respondent has filed no response so it has not attempted to rebut the Complainants’ arguments on this point.
The Panel concludes that paragraph 4(b)(iii) has been proved. 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 one or other of the two Complainants.
David H. Tatham
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy