The Complainant is Trimble Navigation Limited of Sunnyvale, California, United States of America represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Goodsteed Limited, of Nicosia, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2011. On January 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 6, 2011, GoD, Inc. 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” 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 January 10, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 30, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 31, 2011.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2011. 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 a high profile internationally in relation to the sale of navigation and positioning equipment and operates under various trademarks including the word TRIMBLE. The Respondent operates a web site under the disputed domain name purporting to offer "All the latest information, deals and best offers from trusted retailers .... and price comparison ... for Trimble Gps." 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, containing as it does the whole of the Complainant's trademark with a suffix descriptive of their products, is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks; that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name and that its "site reflects no legitimate business reasons for the Respondent's use of a domain name incorporating the Complainant's mark"; and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name did not constitute a good faith use for a resale site, but rather an attempt to benefit commercially from the confusion caused by the disputed domain name. 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 contains the whole of the Complainant's trademark, with a suffix descriptive of the type of goods to which the trademark is frequently attached. There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark for the purpose of the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, 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). In this case, the most plausible right or legitimate interest that might be claimed by a party in the position of the Respondent is that of a reseller or the owner of a commentary or review site.
The Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions summarizes the majority position of Panel decisions regarding the rights of resellers in the in the following terms: “A reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the use fits certain requirements. These requirements include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods and the site accurately disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner. The respondent must also not try to corner the market in domain names that reflect the trademark” The Complainant has demonstrated that these conditions have not been met in this case and, in particular, that the Respondent itself does not seem actually to be offering the Complainant's products for sale, and Complainant's trademarked goods are not the only ones displayed on the website.
In addition, the Complainant points out that the Respondent cannot claim any legitimate interest in the use of the disputed domain name as the owner of a commentary site, as the site "does not contain any reviews, criticism or commentary related to the Complainant or to TRIMBLE brand products, nor any dialogue with users regarding TRIMBLE brand products." The Complainant also points out that the site contains no explicit price comparison material.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the strength of both the Complainant's trademarks and the likelihood of confusion in this case, and given that the Respondent's site appears to include links to other commercial websites, it is highly likely that the disputed domain name is being used to attract customers to the Respondent's site and thereby to reap commercial gain. In addition, the Complainant has brought evidence of a pattern of similarly confusing registration by the Respondent. Together these facts suggest that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and that it would constitute bad faith for the Respondent to continue to use the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the 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: February 27, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy