The Complainant is The Gillette Company of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, represented by The Procter & Gamble Company, United States of America.
The Respondent is Zhao Jiafei of Guangzhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2013. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 15, 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 November 28, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 18, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 19, 2013.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2014. 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 Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) is the parent company of the Complainant and is one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of consumer goods worldwide. The Complainant has used the trademark DURACELL for its battery-related products since at least 1965.
The Complainant owns a number of United States and China trademark registrations in respect of the word mark DURACELL, including United States Trademark No. 793,273 registered on July 27, 1965 and China Trademark No. 155,670 registered on March 30, 1982.
Products sold under the DURACELL trademark are widely promoted in trade magazines, on the Internet and through press releases as well as on television, in magazines and on billboards. Due to the length of use of the DURACELL trademark and extensive advertising campaigns over the years, DURACELL has become a famous, recognised trademark for battery related products.
The Domain Name was registered on April 4, 2013. At the date of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a Go Daddy parking page. On September 7, 2013, an email was sent to a number of contacts at P&G by Pin Pai, who claimed to be the manager of the Domain Name, offering to sell it. P&G responded that they did not wish to buy it and demanded that the Domain Name be cancelled. In further email exchanges, the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to P&G for USD 1,790 and stated that it was only for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its DURACELL trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that by virtue of its long-standing trademark registrations and use of the DURACELL mark the Complainant has rights in the trademark. The Domain Name is identical to the trademark, ignoring the “.info” suffix. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. There is no question of the Respondent having been given permission to use the DURACELL trademark. In its email correspondence with the Complainant, the Respondent simply offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. There was no suggestion that the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to put forward any case as to how it might have such rights or legitimate interests.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that emails to P&G by Pin Pai were sent on behalf of the Respondent. The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for USD 1,790. The offers to sell the Domain Name to the parent company of the Complainant for a substantial sum strongly points to classic bad faith registration and use as identified in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. In view of the notoriety of the DURACELL trademark and its widespread reputation and the approach made by the Respondent to P&G, the Panel regards it as overwhelmingly likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in mind when he registered the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. 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.
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy