The Complainant is Ralph Anderl of Berlin, Germany, represented by Habermann, Hruschka & Schnabel, Germany.
The Respondent is Yang Xia / Krause Adrian Scott of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2013. On March 20, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 21, 2013, 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 .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.auDRP”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 25, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 14, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2013.
The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2013. 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 Complainant is the proprietor or co-proprietor of numerous registered trademarks for “IC!”, “IC”, “IC! BERLIN”, and “IC!-BERLIN” including European Community trademark “IC!”, No. 001245174, registered on September 18, 2000, German registered trademark “IC! BERLIN”, No. 302009018124, registered on August 25, 2009 and Australian trademark “IC!-BERLIN”, No. 851301, registered on July 20, 2001 (the “IC!-BERLIN trademark”). The marks are licensed to a German company, “ic! Berlin brillen Gmbh” (“the Company”) which makes and sells spectacles and sunglasses under the brand “IC-BERLIN”. The Complainant is the managing director of the Company.
The Domain Name was registered on February 9, 2013. It resolves to a website displaying the Company’s logo and offering what appear to be the Company’s spectacles and sunglasses at a discount, with the possibility of making payment in Australian and US dollars, GB pounds and Euros and shipping to countries outside Australia. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant says the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to his marks and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, which was clearly registered in bad faith.
As to legitimacy, the Complainant says the Respondent is not an authorized dealer. The prices at which the Respondent offers spectacles on the website are below the Company’s price to retailers so they seem to be counterfeits.
As to bad faith, the Complainant says the Domain Name was clearly registered with the sole purpose of misleading possible consumers, with the aim of disrupting the Company’s business and to mislead possible consumers for commercial gain by selling counterfeit spectacles to consumers led by the Domain Name to the website thinking they will be able to order genuine IC! BERLIN spectacles. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any response. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed in this Complaint under the Policy, the Complainant must establish that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.
As under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, a respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy but if it fails to do so, asserted facts may be taken as true and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the information provided by the complainant: Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is clearly identical to the Complainant’s IC!-BERLIN trademark, the suffixes “.” being inconsequential and to be disregarded. See BT Financial Group Pty Limited v. Basketball Times Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. DAU2004-0001.
The Complainant has established this element of its case. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the IC!-BERLIN trademark is distinctive. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 and the cases cited therein. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Complainant has established this element of its case. C. Registered or subsequently used in bad faith
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), the following circumstances shall be evidence of bad faith registration and [sic] use:
“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website[ …] by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s name or mark as to the […] affiliation or endorsement of that website […]”
Here, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which comprises the Complainant’s distinctive IC!-BERLIN trademark with the “” suffix, conveys to Internet users both that it will lead them to a website at which the Company’s IC!-BERLIN products are available for purchase and that it will lead them to the official Australian website of the Complainant. Thus, the Domain Name itself falsely conveys an affiliation or endorsement of the website to which it resolves.
The Respondent must have been fully aware of this when registering the Domain Name and did so in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its “www.” website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the affiliation or endorsement of that website.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.
The Complainant has established this element of its case. D. Remedy
The Complainant has requested that, if successful, the Domain Name should be transferred to him.
Under paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the remedy of transfer is available only where the Complainant is otherwise eligible to hold the Domain Name.
Schedule A, paragraph 2 of auDA’s Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs requires a registrant to be an Australian “as defined under the eligibility and allocation rules for each 2LD.”
Paragraph 1 of Schedule C of the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs specifies that for a “.” domain name, the registrant must be:
e) an owner of an Australian Registered Trade Mark…
As the owner of an Australian registered trademark, the Complainant qualifies as “Australian” for relevant purposes. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy