WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
F. Porsche AG v. Dong Wang
Case No. D2011-1778
1. The Parties
Complainant is F. Porsche AG of Stuttgart, Germany, represented by Lichtenstein, Körner & Partners, Germany.
Respondent is Dong Wang of Beijing, the People’s Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <wwwporsche.com> is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a Dotregistrar.com (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 19, 2011. On October 19, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 19, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain name.
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 October 27, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 16, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 17, 2011.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 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
Complainant has been a maker of sports cars for more then 70 years, utilizing PORSCHE as the prominent and distinctive part in its name.
Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks consisting of, or incorporating, the term “Porsche”.
Complainant‘s trademark and trade name PORSCHE are known throughout the world and enjoy a reputation for high quality performance.
PORSCHE cars are distributed worldwide through a network of official dealers. Complainant operates its web site at “www.porsche.com”. The Porsche name is protected by trademark registrations in almost every country worldwide.
5. Parties’ Contentions
Complainant argues that Respondent’s real name is unknown but it is certain that he acts under a number of aliases in the business of cybersquatting, and this has earned him a long case record in the dockets of the UDRP panels.
Complainant alleges that the specialty of Respondent is the registration of “typo-domains” that consist of slight variations of well known trade marks.
Complainant informs that at least once Respondent was subject to an administrative proceeding under the same name that was used to register the disputed domain name.
Complainant also informs that despite many cited cases, in which the panels ordered the domain names to be transferred to the various complainants, Respondent continues to infringe trademark rights by possessing and using misleading domain names.
Complainant asserts that typically these names automatically redirect to a cascade of in-between URLs, among them always <ownbox.com>, each of which trigger Respondent to earn a commission and lead to a website with sponsored links.
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in the very same way as it has used <gogglw.com>, <clarksshoes.com> and <homedopot.com>.
Finally, Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name, since its registration, has always been used as it is used today, to mislead Internet users who misspelled the URL by missing the dot between “www” and <porsche.com> and to redirect them to websites who are part of a system of pay-per-click advertising.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the remedy it has requested: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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. Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s trade name and trademark PORSCHE, which it embodies identically, just adding “www” which is descriptive of the World Wide Web and part of most URLs.
The Panel, therefore, finds that Complainant has established the first condition to the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations and, therefore, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimates interests in the domain name in dispute, according to paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used or prepared to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
In light of this, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second condition of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which totally reproduces Complainant’s well-known trademark PORSCHE. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Panel finds it unlikely that Respondent did not have knowledge of Complainant’s rights on the trademark PORSCHE.
Complainant’s allegations of bad faith are not contested. The evidence provided by Complainant confirms that it had long been using its PORSCHE registered trademark when the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel finds that Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark and, further, that had the requisite bad faith when it registered the disputed domain name.
Also, under the Policy, it is evidence of bad faith that, “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).
This is evidence of the intention by Respondent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents’ website or of a product or service on Respondents’ website.
In light of this, the Panel finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant has established the third element of the Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <wwwporsche.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Dated: December 05, 2011