Daimler AG v. Matthias Moench
Claim Number: FA0712001118553
Complainant is Daimler AG (“Complainant”), represented by Jan
Zecher, of Lovells LLP,
Alstertor 21,
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <daimlerbenz.net>, registered with Enom, 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 December 10, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 12, 2007.
On December 10, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <daimlerbenz.net> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 December 13, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 2, 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@daimlerbenz.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 7, 2008, 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 <daimlerbenz.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DAIMLERBENZ mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <daimlerbenz.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <daimlerbenz.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Daimler AG, is a German automobile manufacturer. For decades, Complainant and its legal predecessors have sold millions of cars worldwide under the DAIMLERBENZ mark (Reg. No. 39,714,376 issued September 25, 1997), which was registered with the German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTO”). Complainant operated under the prior name “DaimlerChrysler AG” when it filed its trademark registration, but later adopted the name “Daimler AG” on October 19, 2007.
Respondent registered the <daimlerbenz.net>
domain name on February 14, 2007.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website
that features links to third-party websites featuring various products, some of
which are in direct competition with Complainant. Moreover, Respondent has been the respondent
in several other UDRP proceedings in which disputed domain names have been
transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See
FELA Elektronik GmbH v.
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.
Complainant has established sufficient rights in the DAIMLERBENZ mark through registration with the GPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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."); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <daimlerbenz.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DAIMLERBENZ mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) despite the addition of the generic top-level domain “.net.” See 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); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <daimlerbenz.net> domain name. Once Complainant has established a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); 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 has failed to respond to the Complaint, thus the Panel may conclude that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the complaint. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). However, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent is using the <daimlerbenz.net> domain name to resolve to a commercial website that features a search engine and links to various websites that offer products in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent presumably receives referral fees from advertisers listed on Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
There is no evidence in the record or the WHOIS domain name
registration information to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the <daimlerbenz.net>
domain name. The Panel therefore finds
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup,
Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001)
(finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the
respondent is not known by the mark); see
also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of
Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly
known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence
on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that
it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the
WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that
Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name
‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website which features links to various websites offering products in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent presumably receives referral fees from advertisers listed on its website. Such use is an intentional attempt by Respondent to deceptively attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s DAIMLERBENZ mark as to the source, sponsorship, and affiliation of its website and disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
Respondent has been the respondent in several other UDRP
domain name disputes wherein the disputed domain names have been transferred
from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See
FELA Elektronik GmbH v.
The Panel finds that 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 <daimlerbenz.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 15, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum