The Complainant is Osram AG of Munich, Germany, represented by Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner, Germany.
The Respondent is Osramtech of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2012. On September 27, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 27, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center sent on October 5, 2012 that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 8, 2012.
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 October 12, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 1, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2012.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 2012. 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, Osram AG, is one of the two largest lighting companies in the world. It is part of the Osram Group which was founded in 1919. The Complainant has sales in 150 countries around the world.
The Complainant has registered the trademark OSRAM for lighting in numerous countries around the world.
The Complainant also holds over 160 domain names which include “Osram” as part of their name.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 5, 2011. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves promotes lighting products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark OSRAM. It is composed of the Complainant’s trademark OSRAM and the generic term “tech” which is short for technology.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has not made any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no commercial relationship with the Complainant and the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith with the intention of diverting Internet users to the Respondent’s website which promotes competing lighting products. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a relatively straightforward case which, in the Panel’s opinion, does not require detailed discussion. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated to have trademark rights in OSRAM.
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark OSRAM and the generic word “tech” which is short for “technology”. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name was, for the purposes of the Policy, registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
Under the circumstances this case falls with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The third element of the UDRP is made out. 7. Decision
For 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy