The Complainants are “Dr Martens” International Trading GmbH of Graefelfing, Germany and “Dr Maertens” Marketing GmbH of Seeshaupt, Germany, represented by Beetz & Partner, Germany.
The Respondent is Domain administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“United States” or “US”) / Angie Arendt of Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , and are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2018. On July 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 4, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 6, 2018, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 10, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 1, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2018.
The Center appointed Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 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
The Complainants are well known for selling, under DR. MARTENS, trademark footwear, clothing and accessories, particularly renowned for its distinctive shoes and boots, first sold in the late 1950’s.
The Complainants are the owners of the following trademarks:
- European Union Trademark No. 59147 DR. MARTENS of 1 April 1996, registered for various goods, mainly for footwear and clothing in class 25, as well as retail services in class 35;
- Australian Trademark No. 500799 DR. MARTENS of 5 December 1988, for footwear and clothing in class 25;
- Australian Trademark No. 652619 DR. MARTENS of 8 February 1995, for retail services in class 35;
- Canadian Trademark No. 420485 DR. MARTENS of 17 December 1990, mainly for footwear and clothing in class 25;
- Canadian Trademark No. 625884 DR. MARTENS of November 18, 2004, mainly for retail services in the field offootwear and clothing in class 35;
- US Trademark No. 1454323 DR. MARTENS of August 25, 1987, for footwear in class 25;
- US Trademark No. 1798791 DR. MARTENS of October 12, 1993, for footwear in class 25;
- US Trademark No. 2838397 DR. MARTENS of May 4, 2004, for retail services in the field of footwear and clothing in class 35;
- International Trademark No. 575311 DR. MARTENS of 18 July 1991, for footwear in classes 18 and 25, also protected in various countries around the world.
- Australian Trademark No. 500799 DR. MARTENS of May 29, 1997, for footwear and clothing in class 25;
- Australian Trademark No. 652619 DR. MARTENS of December 19, 1996, for retail services in class 35;
- Canadian Trademark No. 420485 DR. MARTENS of 17 December 1990, mainly for footwear and clothing in class 25;
- Canadian Trademark No. 625884 DR. MARTENS of December 12, 1993, mainly for retail services in the field offootwear and clothing in class 35;
- US Trademark No. 1454323 DR. MARTENS of August 25, 1987, for footwear in class 25;
- US Trademark No. 1798791 DR. MARTENS of October 12, 1993, for footwear in class 25;
- US Trademark No. 2838397 DR. MARTENS of May 4, 2004, for retail services in the field of footwear and clothing in class 35.
The Respondent is an individual with contact details in the Registrar in US. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names as follows: and on November 24, 2017 and on January 14, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainants contend that:
- They hold DR. MARTENS, which is a famous international brand for footwear, clothing and accessories, particularly renowned for its distinctive shoes and boots, first sold in the late 1950’s.
- “Dr. Martens” footwear, clothing and accessories are available for sale at retailers throughout the world, and relevantly through many retailers in Australia, as well as online at the “Dr. Martens” website, located at “” (the “Dr. Martens” website).
- The disputed domain names are phonetically highly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. The Complainants’ trademarks DR. MARTENS are identical to the “drmartens” in the disputed domain names, being the distinctive part of the contested domain names. The addition of the mere descriptive elements “go” respectively “nice” and “promotion” do not in any way prevent the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the relevant internet users as they are merely and clearly descriptive and meant to attract the consumers to “go” buy products that are of a “nice” type or quality, respectively announce the products to be on “promotion”.
- The Respondent is using the disputed domain names for an online shop selling footwear and accessories with “Dr. Martens” products, which the Complainants further believe to be counterfeit product.
- Even if the Respondent is selling “Dr. Martens” footwear, it is not entitled to incorporate the Complainants’ registered and well-protected trademarks into its domain names without being authorized hereto. The Respondent may create other domain names without including trademarks being registered in other entities’ names. This is a clear case of trademark infringement.
- By choosing and using the disputed domain names, the Respondent is likely to mislead and deceive consumers into believing that it has a sponsorship, affiliation or approval with the original DR. MARTENS trademark owners/licensees/ customers when this is not the case. The Respondent is clearly making of false representations that it and/or its website have a sponsorship, approval or association with the original DR. MARTENS trademark owners/licensees/ customers which is not the case.
- The Complainants assert that the disputed domain names , and have been used by the Respondent in a manner which takes unfair advantage of and is detrimental to the Complainants’ earlier rights.
- The use of the disputed domain names and associated websites by the Respondent causes confusion as to the identity of the entity behind the domain names/ websites. The Internet user seeing the disputed domain names will believe or be likely to believe that the disputed domain names are registered to, operated or authorized by, or otherwise connected with the Complainants.
- The Respondent is using the disputed domain names , and as a platform for selling footwear showing the Complainants’ trademarks. The links to “Dr. Martens” as offered on the contested websites have never been authorized by the Complainants or their licensees. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the trademark DR. MARTENS. The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainants and it is asserted that the Respondent has knowingly registered the disputed domain name with the intention of deceiving and misleading Internet visitors by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Respondent’s website or of a product or service of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent is clearly making illegitimate commercial use of the domain name for commercial gain and to tarnish the Complainants’ trademarks.
- The Respondent is hereby passing off the trademark owners’ goodwill and reputation in the DR. MARTENS trademarks and the “Dr. Martens” name (see: Dr. Martens v. A,WIPO Case No. D2009-1253 of November 23, 2009 regarding the domain name ).
- By choosing the disputed domain names the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or locations.
- The Respondent is likely to make an illegitimate commercial and unfair use of the disputed omain names , and with the clear intention for commercial gain misleading to divert Internet visitors and to tarnish the trademark and service marks DR. MARTENS.
- The Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainants’ right to the DR. MARTENS trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names, since the Complainants’ trademarks are well-known trademark, which suggests opportunistic and bad faith registration.
- The Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain names because, widespread and longstanding advertisement and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, the inclusion of the entire trademark in the disputed domain names and the identity of products implied by addition of a completely descriptive element, suggests knowledge of the Complainants’ rights in the trademarks.
- By selecting the disputed domain names, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its/the Respondent’s websites or other online locations, by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites and/or locations and/or of a product or service on the Respondent’s websites or locations. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy provides that the Complainant should show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
Based on the assertions of the Complainants and the evidence presented in support to these assertions, the Panel finds that the Complainants hold rights in the DR. MARTENS marks.
Moreover, the Panel agrees also with the Complainants’ assertions that the disputed domain names are phonetically and highly similar to the Complainants’ DR. MARTENS mark as they incorporate this trademark.
The addition of the mere descriptive elements to the Complainants’ trademark as “go” respectively “nice” and “promotion” do not in any way prevent confusing similarity. Such elements are merely and clearly descriptive and meant to attract the consumers to “go” buy products that are of a “nice” type or quality, respectively announce the products to be on “promotion”. Therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered DR. MARTENS marks because they fully incorporate the dominant element of the DR. MARTENS marks.
For all the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the DR. MARTENS marks and that the Complainants have established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Policy, under this element, the Complainant has to make at least a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent, as indicated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
This Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and such showing has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
From the evidence presented by the Complainants, it appears that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain names for an online shop selling footwear and accessories displayed as “Dr. Martens” products. The Complainants believe these footwear and accessories are counterfeit products of Dr. Martens, but do not bring any evidence forward in this regard. Nevertheless, it is the assertion of the Complainants that even if the Respondent is selling “Dr. Martens” footwear, it is not entitled to incorporate the Complainants’ registered and well-protected trademarks into its domain names without being authorized hereto by the Complainants or their licensee.
In the circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent has acted as a reseller of the Complainants products and has used the disputed domain names to sell the Complainants’ products, without being authorised to do so. The Panel shall apply according to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8 - the “Oki Data test”. The “Oki Data test” provides for several cumulative requirements to be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case, in order to identify legitimate rights or interests of a reseller in using the trademark of the complainant. Although most of these requirements appear to be fulfilled in this case, one of the requirements referring to the prominent display of the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner is not. In consideration of the “Oki Data test” application to the case and considering the fact that the use of the disputed domain names and associated websites by the Respondent causes confusion as to the identity of the entity behind the domain names/ websites, the Panel finds that that the Respondent was not using or intending to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, as its primary intention appears to have been to take advantage of the Complainants’ renown.
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Complainants have established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel agrees that the current use of the disputed domain names as documented by the Complainants indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or locations and this represents an illegitimate commercial and unfair use of the disputed domain names.
Moreover, the Panel considers that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainants’ right to the DR. MARTENS trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names, since the Complainants’ trademarks are widely well-known with widespread and longstanding advertisement and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question which indicates bad fait registration.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainants have established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, too. 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 names, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy