The Complainant is Kingspan Group plc of Leominster, Herefordshire, Ireland, represented by Wragge & Co., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Dyk Dylina of Hailuoto, Finland; K Privacy--P of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiD. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 29, 2011. On March 30, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING ( SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiD a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2011, Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING ( SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiD 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 April 4, 2011 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 5, 2011.
On April 4, 2011, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both English and Finnish regarding the language of the proceeding. On April 5, 2011, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 April 12, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 2, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2011.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 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.
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not objected to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding. On the current record, also taking into account the contents of the web site at the disputed domain name, the Panel finds, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, that it is appropriate in this case that the language of the proceeding be English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant has been trading under the trade mark KINGSPAN for more than forty years and has, since the 1980’s traded insulation materials under that mark. Since 1991 it has done so under the trade mark KINGSPAN INSULATION. It now has an international reputation in insulation products, with a business turnover of some Euro 1,125,500,000 internationally. The Respondent operates a web site under the disputed domain name containing links to sites selling products in competition with those of the Complainant. The web site operated under the disputed domain name provides no contact details for the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which it is using ”deliberately […] to pass itself off as the Complainant or as authorized by the Complainant, so as to benefit from the Complainant’s substantial goodwill and reputation”; and that the Respondent has therefore registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There can be little doubt of the strength of the Complainant’s goodwill in the field of insulation material. Given that reputation, and that the disputed domain name contains the whole of the Complainant’s trade mark KINGSPAN together with a suffix merely describing the field of the Complainant’s business, “insulation”, it is clear that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. This finding is supported by the fact that the Complainant has been itself using the mark KINGSPAN INSULATION since at least the early 1990’s, a mark identical to the disputed domain name.
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, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (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). This task is inevitably made more difficult when a respondent does not submit a response.
In this case, there is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any type of activities under the disputed domain name, or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, other than the operation of a web site offering products in competition with those of the Complainant. Such a use, exploiting as it inevitably does the confusion created by the similarity of the Complainant’s marks and the disputed domain name, cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests.
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
The Respondent’s decision to advertise insulation products under the disputed domain name suggests that it most likely was, at the time of registration, aware of the Complainant’s business and the strength of its goodwill in the trade mark KINGSPAN. It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, that the Respondent intended to profit from the confusion created by the similarity of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks. Such an intention is clear instance of bad faith in the registration or continued use of the disputed domain name. This finding is further supported by the fact that the Respondent does not provide any contact details on the web site operating under the disputed domain name, an apparent attempt to conceal its identity.
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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy