The Complainant is Mothercare UK Limited of Watford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom” or “UK”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Aliakbar Hoseinzade of Tehran, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2015. On December 21, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was January 31, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2016.
The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2016. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is doing business in the field of retail services and online retail services, and sells products related to babies, children and parents. It was established in the United Kingdom in 1961 and offers a wide range of maternity and children’s clothing, furniture and home furnishings, bedding, feeding, bathing, travel equipment and toys through its retail operations in the United Kingdom and internationally through franchises in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. The franchise partners operate through 1,273 stores. As at March 2015, the Complainant’s UK sales totaled over GBP 450 million and its international sales totaled GBP 745 million. The Complainant’s website is available at “”.
The Complainant’s owns extensive rights in the trademark MOTHERCARE through numerous trademark registrations in various countries, inter alia Community trademark registration no. 001841477 MOTHERCARE, registered on March 2, 2005 and United States of America trademark registration no. 1013771 MOTHERCARE, registered on June 17, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “MOTHERCARE Marks”).
The disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2015 and is used in connection with a website which is a replica of the Complainant’s site and contains all elements of the Complainant’s branding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case.
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MOTHERCARE Marks as it fully contains such marks along with the letters “IR”, which indicate the country code for Iran and are therefore entirely descriptive.
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s website available at the disputed domain name is a replica site of the Complainant’s genuine site and contains all elements of the Complainant’s branding, including the MOTHERCARE Marks and its logo, that the Respondent is selling products through its website under the MOTHERCARE Marks without the authorization of the Complainant, that the Respondent is falsely purporting to be linked to or affiliated with the Complainant, and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with intent to tarnish the MOTHERCARE Marks, for commercial gain, and misleadingly to divert consumers.
(3) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, the Complainant argues that it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s business as the website available at the disputed domain name flagrantly copies the Complainant’s website. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainant states that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name prevents the Complainant from registering it and from using its brand in this form, that the Respondent’s activities are disrupting the Complainant’s business as the Respondent is purporting to be the Complainant and is selling MOTHERCARE branded products on its website which has not been authorized by the Complainant, that the Respondent’s activities jeopardize potential franchise opportunities in Iran for the Complainant, and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; 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
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s MOTHERCARE Marks and is confusingly similar to such mark. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of geographical identifiers, such as “IR”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by a respondent, shall demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panelists that a complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will then shift to the respondent.
The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either. In particular, the Respondent’s use is no bona fide use under the Policy. The Complainant states that the Respondent is selling unauthorized products but has not provided any evidence in this regard. It is, however, proven that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a replica website offering products comparable to the Complainant’s ones. Even if the goods sold at the website available at the disputed domain name were genuine, the Respondent’s use would not have been bona fide under the Policy either. The Panel acknowledges that a reseller can make a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if the use fits certain requirements, including the actual offering of goods, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site’s accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder (cf. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data case”); Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. Technilab, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1774; Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0095). According to the documents available to the Panel, the website available at the disputed domain name does not disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder in any way. Therefore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not meet the criteria set out in the Oki Data case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which can be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, i.e.:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 the respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered 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, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the MOTHERCARE Marks as it uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website which is a copy of the Complainant’s website and contains all elements of the Complainant’s branding, including the MOTHERCARE Marks and its logo.
As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the MOTHERCARE Marks into the disputed domain name and by using such domain name in connection with a website offering competing products the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Brigitte Joppich
Sole Panelist
Date: February 22, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy