The Complainant is Jaguar Land Rover Limited of Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick, Australia.
The Respondent is Mike Kerry, Dzone Inc. of Gwangju, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with F (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 23, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 24, 2014.
The Center verified that the amended 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 29, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 18, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2015.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 2015. 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 owns registrations for the mark LAND ROVER (the “Mark”) in numerous national jurisdictions and, in particular, since 1948 in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia. The Complainant owns the domain names ; ; ; ; and that resolve to active websites promoting the Complainant’s globally recognized motor vehicle products.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 29, 2008. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s Mark plus the generic suffix “motors”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark or the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never engaged in legitimate business in connection with the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends the Mark was registered and is being used by the Respondent to disrupt the Complainant’s business by creating a likelihood of confusion such that Internet users will believe the Respondent’s website is associated with, or sponsored by, the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark plus the generic suffix “motors.”. The practice of adding generic suffixes or prefixes to registered and famous trademarks and service marks to create domain names has long been recognized as creating a likelihood of confusion. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has no rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically asserted that the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark or the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever engaged in legitimate business associated with the disputed domain name or the Mark. The disputed domain name originally resolved to a commercial website offering links to various product websites before the Respondent rendered the website inaccessible. The Respondent’s current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or provided any reasonable explanation for the Respondent’s adoption and use of the Mark and the disputed domain name that would give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s Mark is world renown. The Respondent did not stumble on the disputed domain name by chance or accident. It is apparent that the disputed domain name was intentionally created to divert Internet traffic and to confuse Internet users for the profit and gain of the Respondent. The Respondent is no strangers to UDRP proceedings. The Respondent has been required to transfer numerous domain names. See e.g., DatingD Limited v Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc. a/k/a Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc., NAF Claim No. A0708001052619 (transferring ); Dell, Inc. v Steve Kerry doing business as Northwest Enterprise, Inc., NAF Claim number FA605000705267 (transferring five domain names that incorporate the DELL mark); Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. The Sheraton, LLC, Worldwide Franchise Systems, Inc., Sheraton International, Inc. v Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc, North West Enterprise, Inc. Kerryweb, Steve Kerry,WIPO Case No. D2007-1150 (transferring numerous domain names incorporating the SHERATON mark)1 . Finally, it should be noted that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for an amount significantly in excess of the cost of registration. Such offers to sell domain names in excess of the respondent’s out-of-pocket costs have long been held to evidence bad faith registration and use. 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.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: February 12, 2015
1 The Panel notes the Complainant’s contentions that “Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc.” and “Steve Kerry” are the same or associated entity or person with the Respondent.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy