Blanco GMBH + Co. KG v. Jorge Perez / Vlanco Industries, LLC & Blanco Americas Sink, SRL
Claim Number: FA2010001916989
Complainant is Blanco GMBH + Co. KG (“Complainant”), represented by Jeanne Hamburg of Norris McLaughlin, P.A., United States. Respondent is Jorge Perez / Vlanco Industries, LLC & Blanco Americas Sink, SRL (“Respondent”), Peru.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blanco-alemania.com>, <blanco-americas.com>, <blanco-china.com>, <blanco-italia.com>, <blanco-peru.com>, <blanco2017.com>, <blanco2018.com>, <blanco2019.com>, <blanco2021.com>, <blanco2022.com>, <blanco2023.com>, <blanco2024.com>, <blanco2025.com>, <blanco2026.com>, <blanco2027.com>, <blanco2028.com>, <blanco2029.com>, <blanco2030.com>, <blanco2031.com>, <blanco2032.com>, <blanco2033.com>, <blanco2034.com>, <blanco2035.com>, <blanco2036.com>, <blanco2037.com>, <blanco2038.com>, <blanco2039.com>, <blanco2040.com>, <blanco2041.com>, <blanco2042.com>, <blanco2043.com>, <blanco2044.com>, <blanco2045.com>, <blanco2046.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2049.com>, <blanco2050.com>, <blancoalemania.com>, <blancoamericas.com>, <blancoaustralia.com>, <blancoca.com>, blancochina.com>, <blancoeurope.com>, <blancoitalia.com>, <blancomexico.com>, <blancoperu.com>, <blancouk.com>, registered with Gandi SAS.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 14, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 14, 2020.
On October 16, 2020, Gandi SAS confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blanco-alemania.com>, <blanco-americas.com>, <blanco-china.com>, <blanco-italia.com>, <blanco-peru.com>, <blanco2017.com>, <blanco2018.com>, <blanco2019.com>, <blanco2021.com>, ,<blanco2022.com>, <blanco2023.com>, <blanco2024.com>, ,<blanco2025.com>, <blanco2026.com>, <blanco2027.com>, ,<blanco2028.com>, <blanco2029.com>, <blanco2030.com>, ,<blanco2031.com>, <blanco2032.com>, <blanco2033.com>, ,<blanco2034.com>, <blanco2035.com>, <blanco2036.com>, ,<blanco2037.com>, <blanco2038.com>, <blanco2039.com>, ,<blanco2040.com>, <blanco2041.com>, <blanco2042.com>, ,<blanco2043.com>, <blanco2044.com>, <blanco2045.com>, ,<blanco2046.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2049.com>, <blanco2050.com>, <blancoalemania.com>, <blancoamericas.com>, <blancoaustralia.com>, <blancoca.com>, <blancochina.com>, <blancoeurope.com>, <blancoitalia.com>, <blancomexico.com>, <blancoperu.com>, and <blancouk.com> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with Gandi SAS and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gandi SAS has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gandi SAS registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 22, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of November 12, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@blanco-alemania.com, postmaster@blanco-americas.com, postmaster@blanco-china.com, postmaster@blanco-italia.com, postmaster@blanco-peru.com, postmaster@blanco2017.com, postmaster@blanco2018.com, postmaster@blanco2019.com, postmaster@blanco2021.com, postmaster@blanco2022.com, postmaster@blanco2023.com, postmaster@blanco2024.com, postmaster@blanco2025.com, postmaster@blanco2026.com, postmaster@blanco2027.com, postmaster@blanco2028.com, postmaster@blanco2029.com, postmaster@blanco2030.com, postmaster@blanco2031.com, postmaster@blanco2032.com, postmaster@blanco2033.com, postmaster@blanco2034.com, postmaster@blanco2035.com, postmaster@blanco2036.com, postmaster@blanco2037.com, postmaster@blanco2038.com, postmaster@blanco2039.com, postmaster@blanco2040.com, postmaster@blanco2041.com, postmaster@blanco2042.com, postmaster@blanco2043.com, postmaster@blanco2044.com, postmaster@blanco2045.com, postmaster@blanco2046.com, postmaster@blanco2047.com, postmaster@blanco2047.com, postmaster@blanco2049.com, postmaster@blanco2050.com, postmaster@blancoalemania.com, postmaster@blancoamericas.com, postmaster@blancoaustralia.com, postmaster@blancoca.com, postmaster@blancochina.com, postmaster@blancoeurope.com, postmaster@blancoitalia.com, postmaster@blancomexico.com, postmaster@blancoperu.com, postmaster@blancouk.com. Also on October 22, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 17, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Multiple Domain Names and Respondents
Complainant alleges that all of the named Respondents and all of the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Domain Names resolve to parked web pages which are virtually identical to each other (Complaint Exhibit 14). The registrant organization shown on the WHOIS report (Amended Complaint Exhibit 1) for all 47 Domain Names is Respondent Vlanco Industries, LLC. The information furnished to the FORUM by the registrar lists all of the named Respondents as the registrants of all 47 Domain Names. The address given for the Respondent is the same on all 47 registrations, and all of the Domain Names were registered with the same registrar. On these facts the Panel finds that all 47 Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity and will proceed as to all of them. Except where the context requires otherwise, references to “Respondent” in this Decision, even though in the singular, refer to all named Respondents.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a well-known producer of basins, sinks, faucets and related products. It has rights in the BLANCO mark through its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other governmental trademark authorities. Respondent’s Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLANCO mark since they each contain the entire BLANCO mark, merely appending a number, country name, country code, or regional term and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as it is not commonly known by any of them, and Complainant has not licensed it to use the BLANCO mark. Pursuant to a Consent Judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Respondent Vlanco Industries, LLC and any other persons acting in concert with that Respondent have been enjoined from registering any domain name containing the name BLANCO. Additionally, Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as all of them resolve to inactive parked pages.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent has displayed a pattern of bad faith domain name registration. It disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting Internet traffic to parked web pages. Respondent is passively holding all but one of the Domain Names, and Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLANCO mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
Complainant registered its BLANCO mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,555,655 on September 12, 1989 (Amended Complaint Exhibit 3).[i] Complainant’s registration of its mark is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
Respondent’s Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLANCO mark since they all contain the mark in its entirety, merely adding a number, a country name, a country code, or a regional term and the “.com” gTLD. These changes are not sufficient to distinguish any of the Domain Names from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Ferulev, FA 1652313 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (“Complainant notes that the domain name contains the recognised acronym for its FAMILY GUY mark, along with the number ‘24’ … the Panel finds that the <fg24.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to the FAMILY GUY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”), General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the BLANCO mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names for a number of reasons: (i) Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent has been enjoined from registering any domain name including the word “Blanco,” (iii) Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the Domain Names, and (iv) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the web sites resolving from them are mere parked pages with no substantive content. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Amended Complaint Exhibit 7 is a copy of a Consent Judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 4, 2013. Among the other provisions of this judgment are the following:
2. Defendants [including Vlanco Industries, LLC], their officers, servants, agents, employees, attorneys, and representatives, and/or anyone acting in active concert or participation with any or all of them, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from . . .
(c) registering any domain name which consists of or incorporates any slogan, name or mark confusingly similar to the BLANCO Marks, including, without limitation VALANCO, VIANCO, VLANCO, or BLANCO, but excluding VILANCO and VALCO, which the Defendants may use;
This Judgment was entered pursuant to a Stipulation of Dismissal joined in by both Complainant and Respondent Vlanco Industries, LLC several years before Respondent registered the Domain Names[ii] and there is no evidence that it has ever been amended or terminated. Respondent’s registration of these Domain Names was thus in direct violation of a valid and binding Court order. This is compelling evidence of no rights or legitimate interests in any of the Domain Names.
The information furnished to the FORUM by the registrar lists “Jorge Perez,” “Vlanco Industries, LLC,” “Blanco Americas Sink, SRL” and “Centro Empresarial Real” as the registrant of the Domain Names. With the exception of Blanco Americas Sink, SRL, none of these names bears any resemblance to any of the Domain Names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no Response has been filed UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The dominant element of the name of Respondent Blanco Americas Sink, SRL is also the dominant “Blanco” element of the Domain Names. This does not mean that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names, however, because as discussed above Respondent is not authorized to use, and indeed is barred by court order from using, Complainant’s mark in a domain name, and the evidence before the Panel gives no indication that Respondent used this name for any purpose other than to register the Domain Names. Registering a domain name in a name which is similar or identical to the domain name is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent “has been commonly known by” it for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). There must be some evidence, independent of the registration, that the respondent used the name in a business or some other undertaking, or that persons have by other means come to associate the respondent with that name. If a person could acquire rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) simply by registering it in a name similar or identical to the domain name at issue, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) would be essentially meaningless. Moneytree, Inc. v. Matt Sims / MoneyTreeNow, FA1501001602721 (Forum Mar. 3, 2015) (finding that even though the respondent had listed “Matt Sims” of “MoneyTreeNow” as registrant of the <moneytreenow.com> domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), because he had failed to list any additional affirmative evidence beyond the WHOIS information), Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). On the evidence before the Panel, it is clear that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Amended Complaint Exhibit 14 consists of screenshots of the web pages resolving from the Domain Names. They are all parked pages with no substantive content. Using a confusingly similar domain name to display a parked webpage is not considered a a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon one or more of the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is making no active use of any of the Domain Names. As Complainant argues, Respondent’s registration and non-use of the Domain Names appears to serve no purpose other than to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names. The fact that Respondent registered the 47 Domain Names involved in this matter, and also registered a number of other similar domain names involved in the federal district court case discussed above shows beyond question that it has engaged in a pattern of such abusive registrations. This fits squarely within the circumstances articulated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) and is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. Bullock v. Network Operations Ctr., FA 1269834 (Forum Aug. 10, 2009) (“Complainant contends that Respondent has a longstanding history of cybersquatting . . . . The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”), Ditec International AB / Global Preservation Systems, LLC v. ADAM FARRAR / HOSTGATOR / FRITS VERGOOSSEN / DITEC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION / Christopher Alison, FA 1763998 (Forum Feb. 1, 2018) (“Here, Respondent registered six domain names that all include Complainant’s DITEC mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s multiple registrations using the DITEC mark indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
As discussed above, Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names. This may not fit precisely within any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). Given the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name has been held to be evidence of bad faith. CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.”), Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).
Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Names in 2016 and 2017 (Complaint Exhibit 1 shows the creation dates). Respondent had previously been in litigation with Complainant over its use of Complainant’s BLANCO mark and had stipulated to a Consent Judgment enjoining it from using that mark in any domain name (Amended Complaint Exhibit 7). Notwithstanding the court order, Respondent copied Complainant’s mark in its entirety into the Domain Names. Given the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blanco-alemania.com>, <blanco-americas.com>, <blanco-china.com>, <blanco-italia.com>, <blanco-peru.com>, <blanco2017.com>, <blanco2018.com>, <blanco2019.com>, <blanco2021.com>, <blanco2022.com>, <blanco2023.com>, <blanco2024.com>, <blanco2025.com>, <blanco2026.com>, <blanco2027.com>, <blanco2028.com>, <blanco2029.com>, <blanco2030.com>, <blanco2031.com>, <blanco2032.com>, <blanco2033.com>, <blanco2034.com>, <blanco2035.com>, <blanco2036.com>, <blanco2037.com>, <blanco2038.com>, <blanco2039.com>, <blanco2040.com>, <blanco2041.com>, <blanco2042.com>, <blanco2043.com>, <blanco2044.com>, <blanco2045.com>, <blanco2046.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2047.com>, <blanco2049.com>, <blanco2050.com>, <blancoalemania.com>, <blancoamericas.com>, <blancoaustralia.com>, <blancoca.com>, <blancochina.com>, blancoeurope.com>, <blancoitalia.com>, <blancomexico.com>, <blancoperu.com>, <blancouk.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
November 19, 2020
[i] The USPTO registration certificate names the owner of the registration as “BLANC GMBH & CO.” The address given for it on the certificate is the same as that shown for it in the Complaint, however, and elsewhere the same certificate refers to Complainant’s name as ”Blanco.” On this evidence the Panel regards the misspelling of Complainant’s name in the first instance as a typographical error and of no legal consequence.
[ii] The WHOIS record submitted as Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 shows that the Domain Names were created in 2016 and 2017.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page