Complainant is E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America (“US”), represented internally.
Respondent is Legion Leopolis of US, and PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with DomainContext, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 9, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which did not match the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Complaint originally identified the registrant as PrivacyP with an address of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia. The Registrar identified the registrant as Legion Leopolis with an address of Lviv, US.
The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 9, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 12, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 16, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 5, 2014. Respondent failed to comply with the deadline for submission of a Response and was notified of such default by the Center on January 7, 2014.
The Center appointed Maxim H. Waldbaum as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 13, 2013. The registration was set to expire on February 13, 2014. On January 17, 2014, the Registrar confirmed that the Disputed Domain Name had been renewed.
Complainant has numerous trademark registrations for CORIAN, dating from the priority date of September 7, 1966 in Australia (trademark number 204783). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant, a Delaware science and innovation focused company, operates in over 80 countries around the world offering products and services in various markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, and transportation.
“Corian” is a solid surface material that is durable and offered in a wide range of colors and primarily used for countertops in kitchens and bathrooms. Complainant markets and installs the product “Corian”, for which it has numerous trademark registrations dating from the priority date of September 7, 1966 in Australia (trademark number 204783).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that Respondent is neither affiliated with Complainant nor licensed to use Complainant’s trademarks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is unknown to Complainant and therefore Complainant cannot determine the nature or authenticity of the goods or services offered by Respondent.
Complainant presents evidence that an Internet search through Google shows that “Corian” is a product associated with and marketed by Complainant and that Respondent does not have a connection with “Corian”. Complainant alleges and presents evidence that the website at the Disputed Domain Name uses other trademarks also belonging to Complainant and presents products which compete with Complainant’s product so that customers are more likely to be confused regarding Complainant’s association with or connection to the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has taken deliberate steps to ensure that its true identity cannot be determined and to avoid communication. Complainant further alleges that, based on the worldwide nature of its business and the numerous trademarks it holds for “Corian”, Respondent knew or should have known about Complainant’s trademark. Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that, for these reasons, Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name are in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent has failed to file a Response. Written Notice of this proceeding to the address provided by Respondent to the Registrar was determined to be undeliverable as no such address exists.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark CORIAN. The Disputed Domain Name uses the Complainant’s well known trademark in its entirety and is therefore likely to cause customer confusion with Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has presented evidence of its rights in the trademark CORIAN, referencing numerous federal registrations in the US, the Philippines, Australia, Israel, Canada, Morocco, Switzerland, Estonia, Algeria and Singapore as well as pre-existing usage sufficient to warrant common law trademark protection.
Complainant alleges, and Respondent has not disputed, that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor is Respondent licensed to use Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right to use of Complainant’s trademark either as fair use or otherwise. Respondent has never been authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s trademark. As Complainant rightly notes, use of a “distinctive trademark in a domain name, and providing connection to goods and/or services competitive with the trademark owner, does not establish rights or legitimate interests.” (See Donald J. Trump v. Mediaking LLC d/b/a Mediaking Corporation and Aafrek Domain Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2010-1404).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Disputed Domain Name not only uses the entirety of Complainant’s trademark, CORIAN, but also the website at the Disputed Domain Name also uses other trademarks owned by Complainant and offers products which directly compete with and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s products. A review of the website at the Disputed Domain Name provides ample evidence of this. Respondent uses not only the words, but also the symbols associated with Complainant’s commercial brand and all trademarked by Complainant. The use of Complainant’s trademark, the pictures of kitchens and bathroom countertops, and the wide range of colors offered for the Respondent’s product could hardly be a more blatant attempt to associate the Disputed Domain Name and the products available through it with Complainant. There is no plausible theory under which such usage could be deemed legitimate and Respondent is clearly trading on the renown of Complainant’s brand through its use of the trademarks on the site and in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant rightly points out that “the incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith.” (See Veuv Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. They Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 and Microsoft Corporation v. Montrose Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2000-1568).
Further, Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name included providing the registrar with an address of Lviv, US. It cannot be disputed that no such address exists in the United States and that the delivery of Written Notice to that address failed and was impossible. Registering a domain name and deliberately providing false information to the registrar is, to the Panel, a further indication of bad faith in the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name are 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 Complainant.
Maxim H. Waldbaum
Sole Panelist
Date: February 6, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy