WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carlsberg A/S v. Brand Live Television
Case No. DTV2008-0003
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Carlsberg A/S, of Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Sandel, L�je & Wallberg, Denmark.
The Respondent is Brand Live Television, of Chertsey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 1, 2008. On April 2, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On April 2, 2008, eNom 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”), 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 via email and hard copy. Due to the fact that the address details of the Respondent in the WHOIS were apparently incorrect, the hard copy of the Complaint could not be served upon the Respondent. The proceedings commenced on April 25, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 15, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2008.
In reaction to exchanges between the Registrar, the Center and the Complainant regarding the lapsing of the domain name due to unpaid fees, the Center, upon request from the Complainant, ordered the suspension of this administrative proceeding until June 13, 2008. Upon request in writing from the Complainant, the Center re-instituted the proceedings.
The Center appointed Andrea Jaeger-Lenz as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5 2008. 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
As there is no submission from the Respondent, the following facts are taken from the Complaint and generally are accepted as true.
The Complainant, whose name refers to the founder, Carl Jacobsen, and the hill (berg) where the brewery in Copenhagen is situated, is the parent company of the Carlsberg Group of companies which is the world’s 5th largest brewery group. It was first established in 1847 in Copenhagen and since that time the CARLSBERG mark has become through intensive use and advertising expenditure a widely known trademark, which is recognized in many countries of the world.
The Complainant has registered several trademarks containing “Carlsberg” in more than 150 jurisdictions around the world, including the United Kingdom. Additionally, the Complainant is the holder of several domain names incorporating Carlsberg, including , and . Furthermore the website “” is the Complainant’s general international site.
The Respondent registered the domain name on October 3, 2006. The trademark registrations of the Complainant predate the registration of the domain name. The domain name resolves into a website that provides links to other websites, making use of generic terms and trademarks of alcoholic beverages including those of competitors of the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the CARLSBERG mark and that the Respondent has incorporated the CARLSBERG mark identically into the disputed domain name. The country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) “tv” as a suffix does not have any impact on the general impression of the dominant portion of the name “Carlsberg” and is therefore causing confusing similarity to the trademark.
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name, as there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known as “Carlsberg”. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the CARLSBERG trademark has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant.
The Complainant states that CARLSBERG is a well-known brand throughout the world and especially in the United Kingdom, and on this basis it is inconceivable that the Respondent has registered the name without knowledge of the Complainant or the Complainant’s rights in the mark. In conclusion the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The evidence submitted indicates that the Complainant holds a trademark CARLSBERG in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom.
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name, , is, for the purposes of this decision, identical to the Complainant’s mark. It is established that the specific top level of a domain such as “.com”, “.org”, or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining the identity or similarity of two domain names (Magnum Piercing, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Hugo Boss A.G. v. Abilio Castro,WIPO Case No. DTV2008-0001).
In conclusion, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has, according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
The Complainant has no connection to the Respondent and has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the domain name at issue. The allegations brought forward in this respect by the Complainant were not contested by the Respondent.
As mentioned above, the Respondent has submitted no response and has thus not made an effort to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, according to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Therefore, and taking into consideration the Respondent’s use of the domain name as defined below, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant has to prove that the domain name at issue has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this respect the evidence establishes that by using the domain name , the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to his site for commercial gain by creating a confusing likelihood with the Complainant’s mark. Given the longstanding and prominent use of the CARLSBERG mark by the Complainant, Internet users would reasonably believe that a site found under a domain name fully incorporating the term “Carlsberg” would be sponsored by the Complainant.
Judging from the look of the website into which the domain name resolves it is clear that by using the domain name the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract internet users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product of service on the Respondent’s website or location. The Panel assumes that the links on the website into which the domain name resolves generate revenues to the Complainant. Besides that, it is the opinion of the Panel that given the well-known character of the Complainant’s trademarks it is unconceivable that any good faith use could be made of the domain name without the Complainant’s permission.
The Panel therefore concludes that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met.
7. Decision
In conclusion the Panel determines that all conditions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled.
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.
Andrea Jaeger-Lenz
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 18, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy