The Complainant is Wilier Triestina S.p.A. of Rossano Veneto, Italy, represented by Studio Turini, Italy.
The Respondent is Park Young Min of Cheonan-si Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea / Busan, Republic of Korea, represented pro se. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 19, 2013. On June 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 20, 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 for the disputed domain name.
On June 20, 2013, the Center notified the parties in both English and Korean that the language of the Registration Agreement in this case was Korean. On June 20, 2013, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent requested Korean to be the language of the proceeding on June 20, 2013.
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 both in English and Korean the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 26, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 16, 2013. On July 16, 2013, the Respondent inquired whether the due date for Response could be extended. On July 16, 2013, the Center invited the Complainant to comment on the Respondent’s request for extension, and on the same date the Complainant requested the Center to reject the Respondent’s request. On July 17, 2013, the Center notified the parties of its declination to extend the period for Response, based on 1) that the Complainant’s objections to the Respondent’s request for the extension; 2) that the request was received close to the due date for Response; 3) and that there do not appear to be exceptional circumstances, as required by the paragraph 5(d) of the Rules. On July 17, 2013, the Respondent communicated with the Center by email setting forth its positions in response to the claims of the Complaint.
The Center appointed Andrew J. Park as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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, founded in 1906, is an Italian manufacturer of racing bicycles. The Complainant’s trademark WILIER TRIESTINA is a coined term that is composed of the combination of WILIER, an acronym for “W l’Italia Liberata E Redenta”, and “Triestina,” the geographical area of Trieste, which is the name of a city in Italy.
The Complainant is the registrant of numerous trademark registrations for WILIER TRIESTINA, including seven (7) registrations covering various jurisdictions, including one in Republic of Korea under Reg. No. 1080403 (filed in 2006).
The Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA mark is well known throughout the world in connection with its bicycles, racing bicycles, and success in bicycle racing. In addition, the Complainant has a sales network of approximately 1,500 stores in five (5) continents, as well as an online shop at “” which is visited by 85,000 users per month. Further, the Complainant advertises extensively in various magazines.
The Respondent is an individual who registered the disputed domain name on January 24, 2005. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it owns rights in the WILIER TRIESTINA mark and that the disputed domain name is identical to said mark on the grounds that it is identical to the dominant and distinctive “Wilier” portion and that the “Triestina” portion of its mark is non-distinctive because it is merely a geographical indicator.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant contends that the Respondent was not authorized, licensed, or otherwise allowed by the Complainant to use the name “Wilier,” nor to apply for any domain name incorporating its trademark under any circumstances. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, the Complainant argues that the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA trademark given its extensive use and numerous registrations over many years throughout the world.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services with the disputed domain name, and in fact, that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name for commercial gain by using it to redirect web users to websites operated by direct competitors of the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the disputed domain name. It claims that the Respondent asked for USD 300,000 for the transfer of the disputed domain name.
For all these reasons, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. However, it did provide a written email to the Center dated July 17, 2013. In that email, the Respondent claims that the Complainant asked him to sell the disputed domain name, and so in response, he gave a sales price. The Respondent also claims that whether his website under the disputed domain name links to other websites or not is none of the Complainant’s concern and it does not demonstrate that he copied the Complainant’s name. He also contends that the evidence of the links which the Complainant submitted together with its Complaint is not trustworthy since it could have been copied from some other websites. Finally, the Respondent contends that he sold the disputed domain name to a third party for a fair price. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements which have to be met for the Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Those requirements are that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel has to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of said Rules. A. Language of the Proceedings
The Panel has noted the communications from the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language of the proceedings.
According to the Rules, the language of the registration agreement should be the language of the proceedings, unless there is an agreement between the parties for a different language to be the language of the proceedings or if the panel determines otherwise in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. In such a case a complainant should typically provide satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the complainant and the respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in the language other than that of the registration agreement, translate the complaint into the language of the registration agreement, or submit a request for the proceedings to be in a language other than that of the registration agreement with further evidence as to the reasons for this. The panel has discretion to decide on the language of the proceedings.
In this case, the Panel finds that English should be the language of the proceedings for the following reasons:
- The disputed domain name consists exclusively of a word written in Latin alphabet letters.
- The Respondent has knowledge of English sufficient to be able to understand the nature of these proceedings. This is evident from (1) the exchange of correspondence in English between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the offer and counter-offer for the transfer of the disputed domain name for a fee; and (2) the fact that the website under the disputed domain name was in English.
- The Complainant would incur considerable further expense and inconvenience in retaining the services of a translator to translate the language of the Complaint.
The Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case this amounts to sufficient evidence of the Respondent having command of English necessary to be able to understand the nature of these proceedings.
Consequently, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to issue the Decision in English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Complainant owns rights in the WILIER TRIESTINA mark.
First, the acronym WILIER was first used by the Complainant’s founder in 1906, and sometime thereafter, the mark added the geographic descriptor “Triestina,” and the resulting mark – WILIER TRIESTINA – has developed significant fame.
Second, the Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for WILIER TRIESTINA in numerous jurisdictions including the one in Republic of Korea, where the Respondent is located and there is substantial goodwill attached to this mark.
Finally, the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive portion of the Complainant’s registered mark, WILIER in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA mark. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy the following circumstances, if proved, demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) The respondent used or demonstrably prepared to use the domain name or corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired trademark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the complainant's marks.
A respondent may elect to show rights and legitimate interests, non-exhaustively, by coming forward with appropriate allegations or evidence under paragraphs 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the Policy.
First, while the record shows that the Respondent obtained registration for the disputed domain name in 2005, there is no evidence that before any notice of the dispute with the Complainant, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services. According to the documents submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was redirected to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites. This, in the Panel’s view, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Second, as to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Respondent does not assert that he is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In fact, there is nothing in the record that shows the Respondent conducts any legitimate business activity using the disputed domain name. Also, it is undisputed that the Respondent is completely unconnected with the Complainant and the Complainant has never consented to the registration or use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Any one of the following conduct is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website 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 website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
On balance, this Panel finds that the Respondent did register the disputed domain name in order to prevent the “owner of the trademark or service mark” from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Thus, this Panel finds that the record supports the conclusion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of (1) using the disputed domain name in a manner that is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services; and (2) selling the disputed domain name for profit to a party who may claim ownership to it and have a legitimate use for the disputed domain name. Under such circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct in registering the disputed domain name and preventing a party – who has demonstrated ownership to an identical or confusingly similar mark – from using the disputed domain name for the bona fide offering of goods or services is inconsistent with the Policy.
In the present case, the fact that the Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA mark is famous in connection with bicycles, as well as the fact that “WILIER” is a unique coined word as an acronym for W l’Italia Liberata E Redenta, and the fact that the Respondent was using the website under the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the goods of the Complainant’s direct competitors, all indicate that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its WILIER TRIESTINA mark at the time it obtained registration of the disputed domain name.
Further, it is well established that registering a domain name for the primary purpose of offering to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name for an amount in excess of the registration cost is evidence that a domain name was registered and being used in bad faith in contravention of paragraph 4(b)(i). (see adidas-Saloman AG v. Vincent Stipo,WIPO Case No. D2001-0372). Here, the record shows that the Respondent demanded USD 300,000 for the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, an amount that far exceeds registration costs and that shows an intent to make a profit, and hence further demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith.
Also, while the Respondent claims that he already sold the disputed domain name to a third party, the Registrar has confirmed that the Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name, and it appears that only the contact details of the Respondent has been changed.
Lastly, while the website under the disputed domain name has been subsequently changed to the Registrar’s parking page, it does not preclude the Panel’s finding on the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 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.
Andrew J. Park
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy