The Complainants are “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH, Germany and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH, Germany, represented by Mayr Kotsch, Germany.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard Inc., Panama / Wei Zhang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 13, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on March 18, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on March 18, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2020. 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 own the international brand “Dr. Martens” for footwear, clothing and accessories, first sold in the late 1950's. “Dr. Martens” footwear, clothing and accessories are available for sale at retailers throughout the world, and online from “www.drmartens.com”. The Complainants own numerous trademarks, such as European Union Trademark 150144 DOC MARTENS, Australian Trademark no. 500799 DR. MARTENS, Canadian Trademark no. 930976 DOC MARTENS and United States of America Trademark no. 1798791 DR. MARTENS. According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2019. At the time of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a parking website with links to unauthorized footwear selling sites for “Dr. Martens” products, mainly of third parties being direct competitors of the Complainants. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants have registered trademark rights in DR. MARTENS. The Complainants submit that the Complainants’ trademark is famous, and the Domain Name adopts the Complainants’ trademark with the addition of “outlets”. The addition does not prevent the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the relevant Internet users. The Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been allowed by the Complainants to make any use of its trademark. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to resolve to a parking website with links to unauthorized footwear selling sites for the Complainants’ products. This use is, according to the Complainants, not bona fide. On the contrary, the use is evidence of the Respondent intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his 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 Complainants argue, as the Complainants’ trademarks are well-known, that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainants’ rights to the DR. MARTENS when he registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has concealed his identity. This is further evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have established rights in the trademark DR. MARTENS. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainants’ trademark with the addition of “outlets”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants have made unrebutted assertions that they have not granted any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainants’ trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainants in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The way the Respondent has used the Domain Name is not bona fide. The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name and the fame of the Complainants’ trademark, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Complainants and their business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Complainants have not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainants’ trademark. The use of privacy protection service and the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint, further point to bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 5, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy