The Complainant is Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Germany, represented by MSA IP - Milojevic Sekulic & Associates, Serbia.
The Respondent is Petrit Shala, Graphsix Studio, Kosovo.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 21, 2021. On October 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 21, 2021, 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 November 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 29, 2021.
The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on December 15, 2021. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant, a company registered in Germany since 1916, manufactures automobiles in 14 countries worldwide, and offers them for sale through a global network in over 140 countries. In addition to marketing vehicles, the Complainant offers related products and services, e.g., maintenance and repair, financing, leasing, insurance and warranty. Its worldwide revenues in 2020 were in excess of EUR 98 billion.
The Complainant owns international trademarks containing the term BMW, respectively registered under No. 145185 on January 31, 1950, under No. 489368 on June 29, 1984 and under No. 663925 on December 22, 1995, as well as a large portfolio of trademarks in more than 140 countries worldwide (hereinafter together referred to as the “Mark”).
The Complainant owns and operates many domain names to promote its products and services, including
The disputed domain name
The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to the website of a BMW cars repair service center under the name Auto Servis Skenda, displaying the Mark. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name is inactive.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the Complainant has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark in its entirety.
(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
(iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Aspects - Failure to RespondAs aforementioned, no Response was received from the Respondent.
Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the event of a default.
Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.
In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
6.2. Substantive Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarIn comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name
The addition of the other term (where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
It is also well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAlthough a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that with regard to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of a respondent.
Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel believes the Complainant has made in this case. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. The way the Respondent has used the disputed domain name is not bona fide (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name directs the public to the website of a BMW cars repair and maintenance operator without accurately and prominently disclosing the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, which shows a clear intent to obtain an unfair commercial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers.
No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.
Further, UDRP panels have found that domain names confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark carry a risk of implied affiliation if they effectively impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the complainant, which cannot constitute fair use (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithAs noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Mark, which can be considered as cybersquatting.
It is established in prior UDRP decisions that where the respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke,WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.
In this case, given that the Mark is famous, as was acknowledged in many prior UDRP decisions (e.g., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Gerry Scarantine,WIPO Case No. D2018-0233; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Diagnostic Software, Global Domain Privacy / Elizabeth Davis, Chen Guo Qiang,WIPO Case No.D2020-1110; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Zinaida,WIPO Case No. D2021-1574), the Panel finds that it is impossible to believe that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Mark. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs,WIPO Case No. D2001-1384, citing Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin,WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.
Considering the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as described under 6.2.B, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Mark when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and that such registration was made in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and that such use is constitutive of bad faith.
Prior UDRP panels have also held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible, considering the specificity of the activity (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf,WIPO Case No. D2001-0148). The Panel finds it is indeed not possible to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate, considering the specificity of the Complainant’s activity.
Finally, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer,WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex,WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN,WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao,WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.
The Panel concludes in the light of all these circumstances that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied in this case.
7. DecisionFor 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
Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: December 29, 2021
1 The reference to Kosovo should be understood to in the context of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).