The Complainant is Den Bla Avis A/S of Frederiksberg, Denmark, represented by Gorrissen Federspiel, Denmark.
The Respondent is Janis Briedis of Jēkabpils, Latvia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 20, 2013. On May 21, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 21, 2013, 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.
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 May 27, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 16, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 17, 2013.
The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 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
The Complainant is a Danish company and owns the Danish trademarks DBA.DK and DBA (together: "the Mark") which have been registered in November 2005 and December 2005 respectively.
The Complainant owns and operates a well-known and popular Danish trading website "", which presents advertisements for the sale and purchase of goods. The site currently hosts more than a million advertisements.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 10, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark in which the Complainant has rights and is confusingly similar to the Mark as the disputed domain name, , contains the Mark in its entirety. The Complainant also asserts that the hyphen between “dba” and “dk” actually increases the confusing similarity and amounts to typosquatting.
(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the Mark. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has never acquired any trademark rights in the disputed domain name.
(iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website offering services similar to those offered by the Complainant.
(iv) The Complainant submits that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent sought to misleadingly divert Internet users and consumers, for commercial gain.
(v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates confusion, gives the wrongful impression that the disputed domain name originates from or is associated with the Complainant's business and damages the goodwill of the Mark.
(vi) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Aspects
The Respondent is formally in default pursuant to paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules and paragraph 8(c) of the Supplemental Rules, because no Response was received from the Respondent within the deadline set by the Policy and the Rules.
Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the assertions made in the Complaint.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name or other remedy have been met.
Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.
In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. B. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name , it is evident that the latter contains the Mark. In the case of the mark DBA.DK, a hyphen has replaced a dot and in the case of the mark DBA a hyphen and the words “dk” have been added as a suffix.
The consensus view of UDRP panels is that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark will normally be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 and La Touraine, Inc. v. A Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,WIPO Case No. D2010-1118.
It is also well-established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, does not typically affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. (ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of a respondent.
Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel believes the Complainant has made in this case. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent did not submit a Response, thus offering no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a corresponding name, or uses a corresponding name in a business.
The website associated with the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers services similar to those of the Complainant.
No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.
To counter any notion that the Respondent has such rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and has received no license or authorization from the Complainant.
In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name. (iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name similar to the Mark.
It is established in prior UDRP decisions that the registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that mark may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Pfizer Inc. v. NA,WIPO Case No. D2005-0072; AT&T Corp. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and RaveClub Berlin,WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,WIPO Case No. D2001-0004; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; and Research in Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov,WIPO Case No. D2001-0492.
The Panel considers that the notoriety of the Mark makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent would have chosen to register the disputed domain name randomly, not knowing of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark prior to acquiring the disputed domain name. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, L.L.C. v. Darmstadter Designs,WIPO Case No. D2001-1384 citing Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin,WIPO Case No. D2001-1092. Where the respondent knew or should have known of the registration and use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may also be a demonstration of bad faith. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.
The Complainant has stressed that the disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users for commercial gain.
In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148), considering the specificity of the activity.
Besides, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, persons who are registering domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See paragraph 2(b) of the Policy; Nike, Inc v. B.B. de Boer,WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex,WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.
The Panel concludes in these circumstances that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bad faith and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied in this case. 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
Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy