Complainant is Vontobel Holding AG of Zurich, Switzerland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama / Kenny Mike, WebXpress of Lagos, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 9, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 9, 2018, 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 February 21, 2018 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 February 26, 2018.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 20, 2018.
The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 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 is a globally operating financial expert with Swiss roots. It was originally established in 1924 as a brokerage firm in Zurich. Today Complainant specializes in wealth management, active asset management and investment solutions. Maintaining its headquarters in Zurich, Complainant currently has 21 international locations with 1,700 employees worldwide.
As of June 30, 2017, Complainant held around CHF 164 billion of client assets. The registered shares of Complainant are listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange. Vontobel families and the Vontobel Foundation continue to hold the majority shares and votes in the company to guarantee Complainant’s entrepreneurial independence.
In recent years, Complainant has received numerous awards and recognition to confirm its expertise and commitment, including: Extel – Pan European Survey 2017; “Bilanz” Private Banking Rating 2017; Swiss Derivative Awards 2017; “Fuchsbriefe” TOPs 2017 in private banking; M&A Deal of the Year – Award for Excellence, Institutional Asset Management in Europe 2015; and Morningstar Fund Award in Germany 2012.
Complainant also has a strong Internet presence through its primary website “” as well as its various social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. According to S, Complainant’s website located at its primary domain name received an average of 229.62 thousand total visits during a 6-month period ranging from May 2017 – October 2017. Further according to A has a global ranking of 186,212 and ranks 31,219 in Germany.
Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, including the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (No. 2P-406720) registered on November 12, 1993, International Registration (No. 611299 and 959793) registered on November 12, 1993 and on April 7, 2008, and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (No. 003260106) registered on February 16, 2005 (collectively the “VONTOBEL Mark”).
Complainant owns and has obtained numerous trademark registrations, including those cited above.
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 12, 2017, which has not been used in connection with an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that its VONTOBEL Mark is well recognized by consumers, industry peers, and the broader global community.
Complainant further alleges that by virtue of its trademark registrations, Complainant has shown that it is the owner of the VONTOBEL Mark. See section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Complainant further alleges that its ownership of a registered trademark is prima facie evidence of the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of standing to file a UDRP case.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VONTOBEL Mark. Complainant further asserts that when comparing the Disputed Domain Name to the VONTOBEL Mark, the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name and the VONTOBEL Mark, making the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” irrelevant.
Complainant contends that in creating the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent has added the generic, descriptive term “holding” to the VONTOBEL Mark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the VONTOBEL Mark. Complainant further contends that it is well established that the addition of other terms to recognizable trademarks is not sufficient to overcome confusing similarity pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i). See section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Complainant argues that the fact that the term “holding” is closely linked and associated with Complainant’s brand and trademark only serves to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the VONTOBEL Mark. Complainant further argues that it is known by and is doing business under the name of Vontobel Holding AB; and that the term “holding” is also descriptive of Complainant’s business activities.
Complainant notes that past UDRP panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that complainant’s business is confusingly similar to the trademark in question.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant avers that Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Vontobel” which evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further avers that Respondent was not licensed, authorized or permitted to register the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the VONTOBEL Mark and that Respondent has no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use for the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant further avers that, in the instant case, the pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as “Kenny Mike/WebXpress” which does not resemble in Disputed Domain Name in any manner – thus there is no evidence, including the WhoIs record for the Disputed Domain Name, suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further avers that Respondent cannot be regarded as having acquired rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page and lacks content. Complainant further asserts that Respondent has failed to make use of the Disputed Doman Name’s website and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name’s website, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Complainant further alleges that its VONTOBEL Mark is known internationally with trademark registrations across numerous countries. Complaint further alleges that it has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark well before Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name on July 12, 2017.
Complainant contends that at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the VONTOBEL Mark and that registration of a domain name containing the well-known trademark constitutes bad faith per se. Complainant further contends that numerous trademarks were filed in connection with Complainant’s business prior to Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further contends that it has been in business since 1924 and currently has 21 international locations with 1,700 employees worldwide, which demonstrate Complainant’s enormous fame. Complainant further contends that performing searches across a number of Internet search engines for “vontobel” returns multiple links referencing Complainant and its business.
Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive site and is not being used. Complainant further states that past UDRP Panels have noted that the word bad faith “use” in the context of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy does not require a positive act on the part of Respondent – passively holding a domain name can constitute a fact in finding bad faith registration and use. See section 3.3, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Complainant continues that, from the above, the Disputed Domain Name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the Disputed Domain Name, and thus the Disputed Domain Name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith, with no good faith use possible.
Complainant concludes that it has made significant investment over the years to advertise, promote and protect its VONTOBEL Mark through various forms of media, including the Internet. Based on its extensive use and trademark registrations, Complainant asserts that it owns the exclusive right to use the VONTOBEL Mark and is entitled to a wide scope of protection. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Respondent is not obliged to participate in a domain name dispute proceeding, but if he fails to do so, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and Respondent will be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by Complainant: See, Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.
Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See, section 4.3, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and,
ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and,
iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant properly alleges that by virtue of its trademark registrations, Complainant has shown that it is the owner of the VONTOBEL Mark. See, section 1.2.1, WIPO Overview 3.0. Complainant correctly states that its ownership of a registered trademark is prima facie evidence of the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of standing to file a UDRP case.
Respondent has not contested Complainant’s allegations that it owns the VONTOBEL Mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable rights in the VONTOBEL Mark for purposes of this proceeding.
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the VONTOBEL Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Complainant argues that the entirety of the VONTOBEL Mark is incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further argues that when the Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of a descriptive word “holding” and that this additional word enhances the confusion because Complainant is known as Vontobel Holding AG. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies,WIPO Case No. D2004-0962; Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC,WIPO Case No. D2009-0227; Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign,WIPO Case No. D2004-0206; SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc. v. Olariu Romeo/Orv Fin Group S.L.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0792. See also, section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Respondent has not contested Complainant’s allegations of confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the entirety of the VONTOBEL Mark is included in the Disputed Domain Name and that the additional word “holding” does nothing to dispel any confusion.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the required elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once Complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Where Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use 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) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the VONTOBEL Mark.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant avers that Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Vontobel” and was not licensed, authorized or permitted to register the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the VONTOBEL Mark. Complainant also avers that Respondent has no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use for the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent has not contested Complainant’s averments regarding lack of rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that there is no evidence in this record to support the presence of rights or legitimate interests on behalf of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied the elements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name:
(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the VONTOBEL Mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the VONTOBEL Mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the VONTOBEL Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product.
The four criteria set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are nonexclusive. See, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In addition to these criteria, other factors alone or in combination can support a finding of bad faith.
One such factor is that Respondent has made no use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has not developed any active website at or made any other use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Telstra Corp., supra.
In Telstra it was established that registration together with “inaction” or “passive use” and other facts can constitute bad faith use, and the Telstra decision has since been cited for that proposition and followed by subsequent UDRP panels. See, Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Frank Gully, d/b/a Advcomren,WIPO Case No. D2000-0021; Guerlain, S.A. v. Peikang,WIPO Case No. D2000-0055; Compaq Computer Corporation v. Boris Beric,WIPO Case No. D2000-0042; Sanrio Company Ltd. and Sanrio, Inc. v. Neric Lau,WIPO Case No. D2000-0172; 3636275 Canada, dba eResolution v. eR,WIPO Case No. D2000-0110; Marconi Data Systems, Inc. v. IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0090; Strålfors AB v. P D S AB,WIPO Case No. D2000-0112; InfoS, Inc. v. Tenenbaum Ofer,WIPO Case No. D2000-0075. See also, section 3.3, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Complainant has contended that Respondent has made no use of the Disputed Domain Name for any website. Respondent has not rebutted this contention.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing and under the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to 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.
Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: April 6, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy