The Complainant is Poclain Marketing & Services, Luxembourg, represented by Cabinet Beau de Lomenie, France.
The Respondent is Izak Sedighpour, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 8, 2020. On July 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 11, 2020, IRNIC 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 .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 July 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 3, 2020. On August 4, 2020, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 2020. 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 a Luxembourg company and part of the Poclain group of companies (“Poclain”). Poclain was founded in France in 1926 and is a leading manufacturer of hydrostatic transmissions, including motors, pumps, valves, electronics, and hydraulic power units. Poclain promotes and markets its products and services through websites at “www.poclain.com” and “www.poclain-hydraulics.com.” Poclain employs over 2,500 people worldwide. The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks, including International trademark number 1151693 POCLAIN registered on December 27, 2012, designating a number of territories including Australia, the European Union, the United States of America, and the Russian Federation. The Domain Name was first registered on April 15, 2014, and registered by the Respondent on July 11, 2018. It does not currently resolve to any active website but, according to evidence submitted by the Complainant, resolved at the time of preparation of the Complaint to a web page offering the Domain Name for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its POCLAIN trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its several trademark registrations and as a result of the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark over a number of years. Ignoring the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” for this purpose, the Domain Name is identical to the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather has apparently made no active use of it. Since the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s unusual name and the Mark, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name, and has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name does not currently resolve to any active website but, according to evidence submitted by the Complainant, resolved at the time of preparation of the Complaint to a web page offering the Domain Name for sale. The Panel considers that in view of the nature of the Domain Name it is overwhelmingly likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark when it registered the Domain Name. Furthermore, as noted above, the Panel considers that it is not possible to conceive of any good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put in circumstances where the Domain Name has simply been offered for sale. The overwhelming inference is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a view to selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. Alternatively, it did so with a view to attracting Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark for financial gain and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy