The Complainant is Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (LBBW), Germany, represented by Bird & Bird LLP, Germany.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD, Dynadot LLC, United States of America / dengkai guo, niu nian da G, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2021. On December 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2021, 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 the Complainant on December 29, 2021 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 December 29, 2021.
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 January 6, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2022.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 2022. 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 is a banking institution incorporated in Germany under public law.
The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark LBBW including, for example:
- Germany trademark registration number 399217142 for a combined mark LBBW, registered on August 23, 1999 for goods and services in numerous International Classes
- European Union Trade Mark registration number 001139450 for a figurative mark LBBW, registered on July 13, 2000 for goods and services in numerous International Classes
The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2021.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website offering pornographic content. At the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolved to a Chinese-language website at “www.wplbbw.com” including content of that nature.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant states that it was established in 1999 and has offered mid-sized universal banking services to retail and institutional customers under the name and trademark LBBW since that date. It provides details of its domestic and international operations, including four branches, 13 representative offices and a financing company located in Mexico City.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark LBBW. It contends that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates that mark, prefixed by the letters “wp” which could be understood to refer in German to “Wertpapier”, meaning security, or to “Wirtschaftsprüfer” meaning an auditor, both of which are related to the Complainant’s business sector.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has no business relationship with the Respondent and has never granted it any rights to use its LBBW trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has adopted the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to its trademark, for the sole purpose of diverting Internet users to its website.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order unfairly to exploit the reputation of the Complainant’s LBBW trademark. The Complainant further contends that, by using the disputed domain name for the purpose of a website offering pornographic content, the Respondent both takes unfair advantage of, and causes damage to, the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark LBBW. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates that trademark, together with the prefix “wp”, which does not prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIn the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file any Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a Chinese-language website offering pornographic content. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct to a pornographic website, having no apparent connection with the disputed domain name, does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds the Complainant’s LBBW trademark to be distinctive and to have obtained a reputation in the banking sector both in Germany and internationally. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel therefore infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill attaching to that trademark.
The Panel further finds the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s LBBW trademark, is likely to suggest to Internet users that it resolves to a website legitimately connected with the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website offering pornographic content and the Panel infers that the Respondent intends to derive revenue from the Internet users so misdirected to that website. The Panel therefore finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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,
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2022