WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The European Computer Driving Licence Foundation Limited v. web4COMM SRL Romania Case No. DRO2009-0010 1. The Parties
The Complainant is The European Computer Driving Licence Foundation Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by Tomkins & Co., Ireland.
The Respondent is web4COMM SRL Romania of Bucharest, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with RNC.ro. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2009 in hardcopy only. On September 1, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to RNC.ro a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 2009 RNC.ro transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 9, 2009. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 September 11, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 1, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 2, 2009.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2009. 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 owns various trademarks for the term ECDL. The mark has been in use since 1996.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that states that it is “under construction” and this since 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant began to market its activities in Romania. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it owns various registered trademarks for the term ECDL, which stands for European Computer Driving License. The mark was first used in commerce in 1996.
The Complainant states that it is the worldwide governing body and licensing authority for its licenses, which are global standards in end-user computer skills certification.
The Complainant alleges that it has built up a reputation in Romania and that 113,000 candidates from that country have signed up for their services and products.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical to its mark.
Further, says the Complainant, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name points, since 2003, to a page stating “site under construction”. Prior to that, the disputed domain name did not point to any web site.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has been involved in other UDRP cases, as a Respondent, for breaching others' trademarks. This represents a pattern of conduct by the Respondent.
The Complainant states that it began to establish its brand in Romania between 2000 and 2001. The disputed domain name was registered in 2001. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent is seeking to disrupt the Complainant's business, both in terms of attracting its potential customers and in creating difficulties for customers of the Complainant who may be confused when trying to reach the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of the Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (February 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The contested domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent's default as it considers appropriate.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent could not be unaware of the Complainant's marketing activities in Romania during the years 2000 and 2001. Thus, the Respondent likely registered the disputed domain name in order to interfere with the Complainant's business.
The Respondent's name, as shown in the WhoIs records, bears no relation to the disputed domain name. And the Respondent's web site at the disputed domain name does not indicate any activity that might be associated in any way with the term ECDL.
Thus, given that the Respondent has defaulted, in light of the circumstances the Panel will infer that the Complainant's allegations are correct and the Panel holds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
See InfoS, Inc. v. Hari Prakash,WIPO Case No. D2000-0076 (April 6, 2000) (“In the present default proceeding there is no contention on record in favor of the Respondent, and particularly that it might have rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. No circumstance has been evidenced that could reasonably support such an inference pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c). … Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.”). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent's default as it considers appropriate.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which points to a site stating that it is under construction.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent deliberately registered the disputed domain name in order to interfere with the Complainant's business. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has, in the past, engaged in such conduct with respect to other trademarks.
Given that the Respondent has defaulted, the Panel will infer that the Complainant's allegations are correct and in particular noting that the disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant started establishing a market presence in Romania, consequently, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
See ABF Freight System, Inc. v. American Legal,WIPO Case No. D2000-0185 (May 9, 2000) (“The Panel determines that, in this case, the Respondent's default itself, in the context of facts alleged in the Complaint, leads to an appropriate inference and finding of 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy