The Complainant is De Beers UK Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Bird & Bird, Australia.
The Respondent is Scott van Iperen of Sherwood, Queensland, Australia, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and are registered with Uber Australia E1 Pty Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2016. On January 28, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 4, 2016, 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”), 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 February 8, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 28, 2016. The Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center on February 25, 2016. The Respondent sent a further communication to the Center on February 26, 2016.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 2016. 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.
On March 11, 2016, the Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, requesting the Complainant to provide evidence supporting various of its assertions relating to the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names. The Respondent was invited to respond to any evidence provided by the Complainant pursuant to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1. The Complainant transmitted its reply to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 on March 16, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response to that reply. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is part of the De Beers group of companies (“De Beers group”), one of the world’s largest diamond mining companies and supplier of rough diamonds. The De Beers group operates its diamond supply business across the world through a subsidiary company, Forevermark Limited, (“FMUK”) and via a network of authorized retail jewellers.
The Complainant is the proprietor of various Australian trademark registrations consisting of or containing the word trademark FOREVERMARK, including: (i) two registrations (the earlier of which dates from July 24, 2000) for FOREVERMARK in respect of various goods including precious stones and jewellery, and various services including retail and wholesale services in the field of precious stones and jewellery; and (ii) one Australian trademark registration (dating from June 17, 2011) for FOREVERMARK DIAMOND INSTITUTE in respect of various services including analysis of diamonds and other precious stones. FMUK has appointed two licensees in Australia, and the Complainant’s FOREVERMARK trademarks have been used to advertise and sell diamonds and diamond jewellery in Australia since 2013.
The disputed domain names , and were registered by the Respondent on October 13, 2010, and the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on October 26, 2010. At the date of the Complainant’s response to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, it appeared that all four disputed domain names resolved to a website at “” with the home page titled “Brilliant Earth Real Estate” and the words “Theme by Scott van Iperen” in the bottom right hand corner. The domain name was created on February 12, 2011 and is currently registered to the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights because they each contain the word “forevermark” which is identical to the main component in each of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names because: (i) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names , and in relation to a bona fide offering of goods and services as they all redirect to FMUK’s website located at “”; (ii) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in relation to any bona fide offering of goods and services as it redirects to the Respondent’s website located at “”, and is thereby being used to misleadingly divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to the Respondent’s products and services, with the intention to generate income for the Respondent; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known by reference to any of the disputed domain names; and (iv) the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are subsequently being used in bad faith because: (i) given the strong reputation the Complainant has in its trademarks, the Respondent would not have chosen the disputed domain names unless he intended (a) to acquire them for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring them to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses, (b) to prevent the Complainant from registering the disputed domain names, (c) to create a false impression of association with FMUK in order to attract business from the Complainant, or (d) to disrupt the business activities of the Complainant and misleadingly divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website at “”; (ii) at no time has the Respondent been granted any rights to market, offer or supply products under the FOREVERMARK trademark in Australia, even though in an email dated October 26, 2015, the Respondent stated he initially registered the disputed domain names to market De Beers group branded products in the Australian market; (iii) in an email dated October 26, 2015, the Respondent states that he is willing to transfer, and has initiated transfer of, the disputed domain names, but this transfer never occurred; and (iv) in an email dated December 9, 2015, the Respondent indicated that AUD 10,000-12,000 would be a reasonable offer to transfer the disputed domain names, thereby seeking a significant commercial gain for their transfer.
In reply to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, the Complaint stated that: (i) the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved, as contended in the Complaint, were not indexed by A and so it was unable to provide evidence in support of those contentions; (ii) at the date of the reply to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 the disputed domain names resolved to the website at “”, on which appeared the name of the Respondent and a link to another website operated by the Respondent; and (iii) the domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 12, 2011. B. Respondent
The Center received an email from the Respondent stating: “1. A representative of DeBeers was aware of these domain names back in October 2011 and did not acknowledge DeBeers requirement for them to be transferred. 2. I have continued to hold these domain names, at my expense, since the above date. 3. My request for reimbursement of my costs for the domain names, is a fair and reasonable commercial requirement to cover my outlays.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
When the country code Top-Level Domain identifier “.au” and the second-level identifier “.com” are ignored (as is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark FOREVERMARK. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
When the country code Top-Level Domain identifier “.au” and the second-level identifier “.com” are ignored (as is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain names and contain both the Complainant’s trademark FOREVERMARK and key components of the Complainant’s trademark FOREVERMARK DIAMOND INSTITUTE (namely the words “forevermark diamond”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
When the country code Top-Level Domain identifier “.au” and the second-level identifier “.com” are ignored (as is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark FOREVERMARK. The inclusion in the disputed domain name of the descriptive word “jeweller” does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark, given that the trademark is registered and used in respect of jewellery services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use either its FOREVERMARK trademark or its FOREVERMARK DIAMOND INSTITUTE trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain names, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that each of the disputed domain names is being used to resolve to a website that uses another domain name registered by the Respondent, and which contains a link to another website operated by the Respondent that is unconnected in any way with the Complainant’s business. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith
The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that each of the disputed domain names is being used to resolve to a website that contains a link to another website that is operated by the Respondent for commercial gain. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark – this being evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The evidence provided by the Complainant also shows that the Respondent suggested to the Complainant he would be willing to transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainant in return for a sum in the vicinity of AUD 10,000-12,000. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses – this being evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith according to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. For all of the above reasons, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 disputed domain names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy