The Complainant is LET’S BONUS, S.L. of Barcelona, Spain, represented by Bellavista, Spain.
The Respondent is DNSEEKER of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with My.CO Gateway. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2011. On June 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to My.CO Gateway a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 23, 2011, My.CO Gateway 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 28, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 18, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 19, 2011.
The Center appointed Erick Iriarte as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 2011. 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 following facts, taken from the Complaint, are uncontested:
The Complainant is a Spanish company specialized in the promotion of collective sales of products and services via the Internet. The company has been called LET’S BONUS, S.L. since its foundation on October 8, 2009, in Spain.
The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks including in Spain and the European Community:
Spanish Trademark no. 2.905.455 LETS BONUS, in class 35: to distinguish the following services in class 35: “Promotion of the sales of goods and services to others”. Registered on May 6, 2010.
Spanish Trademark no. 2.924.774 LETS BONUS, in class 39 for the following services "Transport; Packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement". Registered on July 27, 2010.
International Trademark no. 1.040.875 LETS BONUS registered in the European Community and Japan to distinguish the following services in class 35: “Promotion of the sales of goods and services to others”. Registered on May 11, 2010.
Community Trademark no. 9.622.044 LETS BONUS (denominative) in the same classes 35 and 39. Registered on May 20, 2011.
The Complainant has also filed the following trademark applications in Colombia:
Application Trademark no. 11-067513 LETS BONUS (denominative) in class 35. Requested on May 31, 2011.
Application Trademark no. 11-067509 LETS BONUS (denominative) in class 39. Requested on May 31, 2011.
The Complainant also owns and uses the domain name , registered on June 15, 2009.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 17, 2011, as confirmed by the Registrar.
According to the evidence submitted the disputed domain name appears to be used as a pay-per-click site. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present in this case. In particular, the Complainant claims that:
a) The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the above-referenced trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the trademarks and legitimate rights of LET´S BONUS, S.L.
The Complainant also indicates that its trademarks are used intensely and notoriously on its website “www.m”.
b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no trademark and/or rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name .
The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name with bona fide.
c) The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s activities when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant also claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the only purpose of selling it to the Complainant, the owner of the trademarks, or its competitors. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(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 Similar
This first element requires the Complainant to demonstrate that (i) it has trademark rights and (ii) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
(i) The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it is the owner of the registered trademark LETS BONUS based on the uncontested allegations and evidence provided by the Complainant. The Complainant has trademarks in Spain and the European Community. The Complainant is also the owner of an International Trademark 1.
(ii) The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark LETS BONUS in its entirety.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
For the first element it is not relevant that the Complainant has filed trademark applications in Colombia.
“.co” (the ccTLD for Colombia) has adopted the UDRP which does not require the Complainant to have local rights, i.e. a Colombian trademark or service mark. “.co” differs from other ccTLDs where local rights are a requirement under the first element. The UDRP applicable to “.co” only requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Therefore the Panel will not consider the trademark applications filed in Colombia by the Complainant for purposes of these proceedings which do not affect the Panel’s finding that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not demonstrated any right or legitimate interest.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant, the Complainant has satisfied the second element of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy as it has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This third element requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
The Respondent has been using the disputed domain name as a website in a pay-per-click model. The Panel does not find a clear reason of why the Respondent is using the trademark of the Complainant as a “.co” domain name if it is not to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark to attract visitors to its website for commercial gain, even more so when the Complainant’s website includes Colombia as one of the countries where the Complainant appears to offer its services.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, the above findings lead to the conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Erick Iriarte
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy