The Complainant is Deere & Company of Moline, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Vondst Advocaten, the Netherlands.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2016. On February 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 1, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 22, 2016.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 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 the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.
The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Deere & Company, founded in 1837, a leader in the field of agricultural equipment and machinery, owning many trademark registrations for DEERE and JOHN DEERE, among which:
- United States Trademark Registration No. 2,969,969 JOHN DEERE, registered in 2005;
- Community Trademark Registration No. 000332874 JOHN DEERE, registered in 1999;
- Community Trademark Registration No. 000371203 DEERE, registered in 2000;
- International Trademark Registration No. 925.965 DEERE, registered in 2006;
- International Trademark Registration No. 910.037 JOHN DEERE, registered in 2005.
The Complainant is also operating through the Internet with several domain names, among which , , , , , .
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 4, 2013 and according to the Complainant was probably transferred to the Respondent on December 11, 2015. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name pointed to a website with the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks and logo, offering fake copies of various manuals of Complainant’s products for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks DEERE and JOHN DEERE.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademarks within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since it was registered with the only purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL INTERNATIONAL PLC v. MARK FREEMAN,WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v. GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0288). 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks DEERE and JOHN DEERE both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks DEERE and JOHN DEERE.
Regarding the addition of the generic word “tractors”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the word “tractors” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, in this case “.net”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the 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) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site 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] web site or location.”
As regards to the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks DEERE and JOHN DEERE in the field of agricultural equipment and machinery is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or must have known that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, especially because of the use of the generic word “tractors” (one of the main products of the Complainant) in the disputed domain name and since in the relevant website fake manuals for the Complainant’s products are offered for sale with reproductions of the Complainant’s trademarks, logo and colors.
In fact, the disputed domain name was also used in bad faith since in the relevant website, the Respondent was offering fake manuals for the Complainant’s products for sale for a higher price than the price of the Complainant’s official manuals, using trademarks, logo and colors of the Complainant.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: March 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy