ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Caffè Borbone S.r.l. v. Swiss Domain Trustee AG Case No. D2024-2154 1. The Parties The Complainant is Caffè Borbone S.r.l., Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Swiss Domain Trustee AG, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 30, 2024. On June 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 June 10, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2024. The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on July 3, 2024. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, based in Italy, produces and markets coffee products under the CAFFE BORBONE mark around the world. It is the proprietor of several trademark registrations, including the following: - Italian Trademark Registration No. 0000895990for CAFFE BORBONE (device mark), registered on June 9, 2003 for goods and services in classes 9, 30 and 42; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 15670532 for BORBONE (device mark), registered on November 23, 2016 for goods and services in classes 7, 11, 21, 30, 35, 37,40 and 43. The Complaint operates its primary business website at the domain name . It has also registered numerous other domain names reflecting its mark. The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2019. It resolves to a landing page stating that it has been purchased. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it was founded in 1997 in Naples, Italy and is considered one of the market leaders in Italy. It produces 96 tons of coffee products each day; these products have received numerous awards for taste and quality. The CAFFE BORBONE brand has likewise been recognized as a category leader. The disputed domain name reflects the Complainant’s well-established trademark in its entirety. The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant nor any rights in the CAFFE BORBONE mark. At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s business was well-established. The disputed domain name is being passively held in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following: (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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[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”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
page 3 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s CAFFE BORBONE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, except that the elements CAFFE and BORBONE are reversed. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes there is no evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the composition of the disputed domain name, which reflects all elements of the Complainant’s CAFFE BORBONE mark, carries a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name was registered more than 15 years after the Complainant registered its CAFFE BORBONE mark. The disputed domain name reflects all elements of the Complainant’s mark, albeit in reverse order, thereby implying a connection to the Complainant. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.
page 4 Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page such as the type of page visible in the evidence available in this case) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/ Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy