WMC Resources Ltd v. Rolf Bleisteiner
Claim Number: FA0205000114331
Complainant is WMC Resources Ltd, Perth, AUSTRALIA (“Complainant”). Respondent is Rolf Bleisteiner, Igersheim Bayern, GERMANY (“Respondent”).
The domain name at issue is <wmc.biz>, registered with CORE.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (“IP”) Claim Form with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 20, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 28, 2002.
On May 31, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 20, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).
Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 17, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as the single 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 STOP Rules. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Respondent’s <wmc.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WMC registered mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <wmc.biz> domain name.
3. Respondent registered the <wmc.biz> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns numerous international trademark registrations for its WMC mark, including: Australian Reg. No. 291,060; United Kingdom Reg. No. 1,042,939; Canadian Reg. No. 208,269; and U.S. Reg. No. 1,025,440, among others.
Complainant was established in 1933 and operates a worldwide exploration and mining business. Complainant also operates from the following domain names: <wmc.com> and <wmc.com.au>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 27, 2002 through NeuLevel’s STOP registration procedure. Complainant’s investigation has revealed that Respondent is associated with the business Alpha Getriebe, and the address listed under the contact information on Alpha Getriebe’s website <alphagetriebe.de> is the same as that listed by Respondent under its WHOIS information.
Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the STOP Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the STOP Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:
(1) the domain name is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Due to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where applicable.
Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant has registered an Intellectual Property (“IP”) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant asserts rights. The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.
Complainant has established rights in the WMC mark through worldwide registration and continuous use of the mark since 1933.
Respondent’s <wmc.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WMC mark. Respondent’s domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and deviates from Complainant’s registered mark by the inconsequential addition of the gTLD “.biz.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wmc.biz> domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding, the Panel is permitted to make all reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant. See 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”).
Respondent has yet to develop a stated purpose for the disputed domain name and has not provided any evidence suggesting any demonstrable preparations to use <wmc.biz> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent has the burden of providing reliable evidence that it registered <wmc.biz> for a legitimate purpose. Respondent’s failure to support its registration of the infringing domain name with evidence signifying some right or legitimate interest implies that Respondent has none. See Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests); see also Gene Logic Inc. v. Bock, FA 103042 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002) (finding that in order to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Respondent must establish with valid evidence “a course of business under the name, or at least significant preparation for use of the name prior to learning of the possibility of a conflict” with an IP Claimant).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The criteria specified in ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the STOP Policy does not represent an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence. The Panel must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in order to determine if Respondent registered or used the domain name in bad faith. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence).
Due to the nature of NeuLevel’s STOP IP Claim registration procedure, Complainant’s continuous use of its mark in international commerce since 1933 and Complainant’s listing on numerous trademark registers worldwide, Respondent had constructive and actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the WMC mark. Respondent’s subsequent registration of the infringing <wmc.biz> domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s preexisting rights in the WMC mark, represents bad faith registration under STOP Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable possibility, and no evidence from which to infer, that the domain name was selected at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name); see also Gene Logic Inc. v. Bock, FA 103042 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002) (finding that the unique nature of the STOP Policy and the notice given to Respondent regarding existing IP Claims identical to its chosen domain name precluded good faith registration of <genelogic.biz> when Respondent registered it with “full knowledge that his intended business use of this domain name was in direct conflict with a registered trademark of a known competitor in exactly the same field of business”).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the STOP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wmc.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant, and that subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain name SHALL NOT be permitted.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page