Complainant is Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kindgom”), represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America / Christian Karam, forexacademy of Mansourieh, Lebanon, represented by Ghanem Law Firm, Lebanon. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 16, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 1, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 13, 2017. Respondent sent two email communications to the Center on December 7, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 23, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on January 22, 2018.
The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2018. 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
Complainant uses the mark ASTON MARTIN for automobiles and is famous world-wide for the quality of its cars and for its iconic association with James Bond. Complaint owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the mark ASTON MARTIN, such as European Union Trademark No. 008367815 ASTON MARTIN, registered on March 16, 2010.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 23, 2017. Complainant has shown that Respondent used the disputed domain name to redirect to the website “”. Complainant has also shown that the target redirect website is an unauthorized imitation of a legitimate website operated by Credit Financier Invest at . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous trademark, that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As relief, Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name. B. Respondent
Respondent generally denies Complainant’s contentions, but has provided no material facts or support for its denial.
In addition, Respondent consents in the Response to the relief sought by Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings
Because Respondent consents to the relief sought by Complainant, there is little need for a lengthy review of the facts and evidence. However, upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Panel will enter the following findings in favor of Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASTON MARTIN trademark. The addition of “” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has shown a prima facie case for a finding that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not presented any material facts or support to counter Complainant’s showing and none appear in the record. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant has shown that the ASTON MARTIN trademark is widely known and famous on a global basis and is the subject of numerous trademark registrations worldwide. Complainant has also presented evidence to show that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to a fraudulent website. Respondent again has provided no material facts or support for its general denial of this claim. The Panel can find no plausible good faith justification for Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in the manner shown by the submissions. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, and with consent of Respondent, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Mark Partridge
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy