DaimlerChrysler AG v. Gary Viar
Claim Number: FA0709001080832
Complainant is DaimlerChrysler AG (“Complainant”), represented by Jan
Zecher, of Lovells LLP,
Warburgstr. 50,
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mercedes-benz.net>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 21, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 24, 2007.
On September 21, 2007, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 26, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 16, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mercedes-benz.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 20, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <mercedes-benz.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s MERCEDES-BENZ mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, DaimlerChrylser AG, has sold millions of
automobiles under the MERCEDES-BENZ trademark.
In the last decade Complainant has spent millions of dollars in
Respondent registered the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name on September 11, 2004. Respondent is using the disputed domain name
to host links to unrelated third-party websites. Additionally, there is a banner at the top of
the website offering the disputed domain
name for sale.
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 Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of 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 Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the
MERCEDES-BENZ trademark with the USPTO establishes its rights under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive.").
Respondent’s <mercedes-benz.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s MERCEDES-BENZ mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only the generic top-level domain “.net.” The addition of “.net” is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name identical to Complainant’s mark. See Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the complainant’s famous NIKE mark); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name. Complainant has the burden of proof for this allegation persuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once Complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent. The Panel finds the Complainant has met its burden. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to assume the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine legitimate rights or interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by
<mercedes-benz.net>
domain name persuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). The record contains nothing to
suggest Respondent is commonly known by disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the
Respondent as “Gary Viar” with no reference to the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name. Respondent is in no way licenced or authorized to use the MERCEDES-BENZ
trademark. The Panel finds that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name under Policy 4 ¶ (c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information
implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one
factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Ian
Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA
173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable
evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a
domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
The <mercedes-benz.net> domain name resolves to a website containing links to unrelated third-party websites. The Panel presumes that Respondent is using the domain name for monetary gain, by capitalizing on the good reputaiton of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display a banner on the top of the web page offering to sell the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name indicates it lacks rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
The Panel finds that the Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use of <mercedes-benz.net> domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s MERCEDES-BENZ trademark, is likely to cause confusion to customers searching for Complainant’s goods and services. There may be confusion regarding Complainant’s affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship of the links advertised on Respondent’s website. The Panel can assume Respondent is commercially benefiting from this confusion. Based on the findings, the Panel concludes the use of the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because the respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with the complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Furthermore, Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain
name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, evidences its lack of
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net”
Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even
if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the
respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
The Panel finds that the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mercedes-benz.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
November 5, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum