Complainant is Camper, S.L. of Baleares, Spain, represented by Abril Abogados, Spain.
Respondents are Fei Cui Bai, Hu Meng Yu, Hua Bai Rong, Xi Bo, and Lang Fang Bo of China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , and are registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 24, 2013. On January 24 and 25, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 25 and 28, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On January 29, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 25, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 26, 2013.
The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2013. 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
Complainant offers footware and other produces all over the world under the trademark CAMPER, and has done so for decades. Complainant is the registered owner of various word marks and stylized trademarks consisting of the word “camper” in a number of jurisdictions, including countries within Europe (since 1977) and China (since 1993). Complainant also operates a website linked to a domain name having the word “camper” as the entirety of the second level domain.
Respondents Fei Cui Bai, Hu Meng Yu, Hua Bai Rong, Xi Bo, and Lang Fang Bo are based in China. The disputed domain names , , , , were registered on August 20, 2012, August 27, 2012, September 29, 2012, November 1, 2012, and November 22, 2012, respectively. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant requests the proceedings be in English because (1), Respondents have used English terms in the disputed domain names, (2) websites linked to the disputed domain names are in English, and (3) Respondents therefore have a demonstrated familiarity with English.
Complainant claims Respondents are closely associated or related, and should be consolidated, because (1) the content in the various active websites linked to the disputed domain names is identical, (2) , , and all redirect to or were once otherwise redirected to each other, (3) the disputed domain names are constructed using similar words, (4) all the disputed domain names were registered through the same registrar, and (5) various websites linked to the disputed domain names have been accused of similar acts of identity theft by online consumers.
Complainant claims the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark because the disputed domain names contain the trademark in its entirety and because the insertion of the various generic terms (e.g., “shoes”, “mall”, “shop(s)”, “new”) does not distinguish the disputed domain names from the CAMPER trademark and instead increases the likelihood of confusion because the terms relate directly to Complainant’s business associated with its CAMPER trademark – i.e., selling CAMPER-branded footwear.
Complainant claims Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because (1) Respondents have not been known under any of the disputed domain names or under the term “camper”, (2) Respondents have no prior rights in the disputed domain names, (3) Complainant’s CAMPER trademark is very well-known throughout the world, (4) Respondents have no relationship with Complainant and are not authorized by Complainant in any way to use the CAMPER mark, (5) Respondents do not use the disputed domain names in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services because the items offered for sale are not authorized and appear counterfeit and/or fake, and (6) Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names is commercial and not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant claims Respondents have registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith because (1) Complainant’s CAMPER trademark is very well-known, (2) Respondents have voluntarily and knowingly created confusion with the CAMPER trademark by choosing to register the disputed domain names featuring the CAMPER trademark, (3) the websites linked to the disputed domain names are all designed to deceive consumers by including Complainant’s CAMPER trademarks, logos, press releases, and other website content copied wholesale, (4) the linked websites appear to contain additional content designed to trick consumers into believing they are legitimate, and (5) the disputed domain names and the linked websites deceptively divert customers from Complainant thus unfairly disrupting Complainant’s business. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceeding
The language of the registration agreements for the disputed domain names is Chinese. Complainant has requested that English be recognized as the language of the proceeding. Respondents have not commented regarding the language of the proceeding. The Center has communicated notice of the Complaint in both English and Chinese languages and has invited Respondents to answer the Complaint in either language.
The content featured on websites linked to at least two of the disputed domain names is displayed in English, and this demonstrates to the Panel that Respondents have a working knowledge of the English language. Furthermore, all the disputed domain names incorporate English language words, including generic terms added to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark. Taking the foregoing points into account along with Respondents’ default and lack of any communication in this proceeding, the Panel concludes that English should be the language of the proceedings. Translation of the Complaint and other materials would cause unnecessary cost and delay. B. Consolidation of the Parties
The consolidation of multiple registrants as respondents in a single UDRP proceeding may be appropriate under paragraph 3(c) and/or 10(e) of the Rules provided the complainant can demonstrate that the domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and the panel, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, determines that consolidation would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to all parties. Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0281.
Common control or ownership has been found (1) in circumstances indicating that a single person or entity has registered multiple domain names using fictitious names, (2) based on instances of commonality in registration information, (3) where the content of multiple respondents’ websites were substantially identical and referred Internet visitors to a common “homepage”, and (4) where domain names of multiple respondents were registered with the same registrar and resolved to essentially identical websites. Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, supra.
Here, the record shows that each of the four disputed domain names linked to active websites resolves to one website, and the remaining disputed domain name was once linked similarly.
In addition, each of the disputed domain names incorporates Complainant’s CAMPER trademark in its entirety, and each of the disputed domain names has been used in an identical manner to divert consumers from Complainant’s website and/or businesses. The record shows that Complainant has been the target of common conduct based on the registration and use of the disputed domain names and that such conduct interferes in Complainant’s rights in the CAMPER mark. Furthermore, Complainant’s claims against the disputed domain names involve common questions of law and fact.
In light of this, the Panel finds that consolidation would be procedurally efficient. Consolidation here promotes the shared interests of the parties in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, and generally furthers the fundamental objectives of the Policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that consolidation under the present circumstances would unfairly favor or prejudice any party.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established more likely than not that the disputed domain names are subject to common ownership or control sufficient to justify consolidation of Complainant’s claims against Respondents. The Panel further finds in the circumstances of this case that consolidation is equitable and procedurally efficient. The Panel concludes that consolidation is consistent with the Policy, the Rules, and with prior relevant UDRP decisions, and allows consolidation as requested by Complainant. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The record shows Complainant owns trademark rights in CAMPER recognized throughout Europe and in China prior to the disputed domain name registrations in 2012. The record also shows that Respondents are purporting to use the disputed domain names in connection with the sale of goods.
The disputed domain names combine the literal element consisting of Complainant’s CAMPER trademark with various generic terms. The Panel views the “camper” portion of the disputed domain names as identical to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark, and so the disputed domain names feature Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
“The Policy requires that the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. This requirement can be satisfied by proof that the Complainant is the owner or licensee of a registered mark anywhere in the world – not just in the country of Respondent’s residence.” See, e.g., Advanced Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Computer Dazhong,WIPO Case No. D2003-0668. The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the CAMPER trademark.
The mere addition of a generic term to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark is not normally sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. “In most cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, then the domain name will for the purposes of the Policy be confusingly similar to the mark.” Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC,WIPO Case No. D2009-0227. “The issue is not whether confusion is likely in the trademark sense (that is, confusion as to source based on the domain name and its use in connection with a website), but rather, whether the domain name, standing alone, is sufficiently similar to the trademark to justify moving on to other elements of a claim for cybersquatting.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,WIPO Case No. D2009-0323. “Each case must be judged on its own facts, and the assessment will always depend on the specific mark and the specific domain name.” Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, supra.
Here, each of the disputed domain names incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s trademark, and the additional generic terms do not reduce the prominence of Complainant’s trademark therein. Rather, the additional generic terms increase the likelihood of confusion because they relate directly to Complainant’s business and the offer of goods associated with the CAMPER trademark. Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone,WIPO Case No. D2000-1809. Furthermore, the Panel does not believe that the inclusion of the generic terms to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark creates a new or different mark or literal element which is materially different to Complainant’s trademark. It is therefore likely that consumers would be confused by the use of the trademark in the disputed domain names.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMPER trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondents are associated or affiliated with Complainant or that Respondents have any other rights or legitimate interests in the term “camper”. As such, Complainant has successfully presented a prima facie case that Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which Respondents have not rebutted. Discussed more fully below, the Panel also finds Respondents are not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods and services. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names is a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, or that Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The record shows Complainant owns trademark rights in CAMPER that precede creation of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are predominantly composed of the trademark and incorporate the trademark in its entirety. A simple Internet search for “camper” and “shoes” results in links predominantly related to Complainant and Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that Respondents were likely aware of Complainant or should have known of Complainant when registering the disputed domain names.
The record also shows that the contents of the websites linked to the disputed domain names feature the CAMPER trademark and advertise similar-looking goods as those offered by Complainant under the CAMPER trademark. The Panel finds that Respondents’ advertisement of goods constitutes commercial competition with Complainant and Complainant’s goods that trades on the goodwill invested in Complainant’s CAMPER trademark.
The use of a domain name featuring a trademark to advertise goods or services which compete with those provided under that trademark supports a finding that the domain name registrant was aware of the other party’s mark at the time the domain name was registered. Lancôme Parfums et Beaute & Compagnie v. D Nigam, Privacy Protection Services / Pluto Domains Services Private Limited,WIPO Case No. D2009-0728. By registering the disputed domain names using Complainant’s CAMPER trademark and advertising goods in competition with Complainant using Complainants well-known and registered trademarks and logos, Respondents are intentionally diverting traffic from Complainant’s businesses and website.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that where a registrant, by using a domain name, intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website, such use constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use.
The record shows that Respondents have used the disputed domain names to advertise goods in commercial competition with Complainant and Complainant’s goods. Moreover, the incorporation of Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names combined with the content featured on the websites linked to the disputed domain names, without an accurate disclosure of Respondents’ relationship with Complainant, illustrates an intent to deceive consumers into believing that the disputed domain names are associated with, affiliated with, and/or endorsed by Complainant and cannot constitute a bona fide use. The record offers no evidence to refute this finding.
The Panel concludes that Respondents’ conduct falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been satisfied. 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 names , , , , and be transferred to Complainant.
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: April 5, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy