The Complainant is AGUAS DE CABREIROA, S.A.U., of Orense, Spain, represented by Garrigues, Spain.
The Respondent is Hello Domain of New York, United States of America (the "USA"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 26, 2014. On November 27, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2014, 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 December 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 28, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 29, 2014.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on December 31, 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 Complainant is a Spanish company which has been selling mineral water since 1906, and currently bottles 52 million litres of mineral water per annum, and sells its mineral water throughout Spain and exports to a number of countries, including the USA, under its CABREIROA trademark.
Details of registration of its CABREIROA trademark in Spain, the USA and other countries have been supplied to the Panel by the Complainant, as have details of the Complainant's marketing, advertising and sponsorship of gastronomic and sportive events. In particular, the Complainant is currently a sponsor of the Spanish national football team, which has produced world-wide exposure of the Complainant's CABREIROA mineral water.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
The disputed domain name was created on June 23, 2010 and resolves to a pay-per-click website displaying the message "Dominio esta en venta / This domain is for sale" on the top of its website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CABREIROA trademark.
The Complainant states that, to the best of its knowledge, CABREIROA is not a nickname of the Respondent, and that the Respondent has no particular connections with the name CABREIROA. Further, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CABREIROA trademarks.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive registration of domain names, and has drawn three prior cases in which the current Respondent was the respondent to the Panel's attention. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the complainant:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") indicators (e.g. ".com", ".info", ".net", ".org") may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with this view and considers the gTLD indicator ".com" to be irrelevant in the present case. What remains in the disputed domain name is merely the Complainant's CABREIROA trademark, and the disputed domain name is, therefore, self-evidently, confusingly similar to the Complainant's CABREIROA trademark.
The Panel, consequently, finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the present Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel regards the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, may lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding that a disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Panel regards the circumstances of the present case, in which the Complainant's trademark was incorporated in its entirety, with no additions beyond the legally irrelevant ".com" gTLD indicator, as sufficient for the Panel to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently being used with an annotation that the domain name is for sale. This Panel has read and noted also the following UDRP decisions Generalitat de Catalunya v HELLO DOMAIN,WIPO Case No. D2005-0010; Barceló Copropración Empresarial, S.A. v. HELLO DOMAIN,WIPO Case No. D2007-1380 and SANUTRI AG.v HELLO DOMAIN,WIPO Case No. D2010-0554, and finds that the circumstances set out in these cases, in the light of the circumstances in the present case, to be sufficiently compelling for him to conclude that the Respondent has been engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour in connection with domain name registrations.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: January 14, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy