Camper, S.L. v. DPR USA a/k/a Global DNS Services

Claim Number: FA0208000118188



Complainant is Camper, S.L., Inca Baleares, SPAIN (“Complainant”) represented by Ignacio Temiño Ceniceros, of Abril Abogados, S.L.  Respondent is DPR USA, Amstelveen, THE NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”) represented by Gijs Graafland, of DPR USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with eNom, Inc.



The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Sandra Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on August 13, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 12, 2002.


On August 15, 2002, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <> is registered with eNom, Inc. and that the 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 the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).


On September 6, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 26, 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 usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 25, 2002.


On October 15, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the owner of several international trademark registrations for the mark CAMPER in various classes, primarily shoes, apparel and leather goods.  It further states that it intends to expand the use of its famous mark and offer services in the travel industry and in education.  Complainant notes that Respondent has no trademark rights in the mark CAMPER.  Complainant argues that bad faith should be inferred from the fact that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s many registrations for the mark CAMPER.  Complainant also complains about NeuStar’s policies and procedures for registering “.us domain names, which will not be considered here.


B. Respondent

Respondent’s primary argument is that it is not possible to use the word CAMPER as a trademark in the class they intend to use it in, namely, the rental of campers in the USA.  Respondent also states that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name in that it intends to offer services under that name, though it is not currently doing so.  Finally, Respondent states that it is not using the mark CAMPER with the intention to gain from Complainant’s reputation or to mislead customers.



This Panel finds that Complainant has met all three requirements under the Policy.



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 that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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.


Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered and famous mark.  It is not relevant that there may be a class of services for which the Complainant has not yet established trademark rights.  The word CAMPER is already a registered mark of Complainant and, therefore, Respondent’s argument regarding the genericness of the word cannot be attacked in this proceeding.  Respondent may or may not be able to block a future trademark application by Complainant in a new class, but that is unrelated to Complainant’s present claim on the domain name under the Policy.  A domain name stands undistinguished as to class, and is open to customers as simply a word by which they can locate the well-known manufacturer CAMPER on the Internet.  As such, customers looking for Complainant will in fact be confused, whether Respondent intends to confuse them or not.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

This Panel finds that Respondent has not established legitimate interests in the domain name <>.  Respondent states that it intends to market campers in the U.S. to European travelers.  The printouts of existing website material are not in English.  Respondent’s parent company is “a reservation facilitating company for the European hotel and leisure industry”.  It is likely that future marketing efforts will not be in English and there is no evidence to the contrary.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

This Panel finds that it is highly likely and very predictable, due to the famous nature of the mark CAMPER, that the public will be confused and wrongly diverted from Complainant’s website to Respondent.  Customers looking for even a well-known mark routinely make mistakes in how they enter Internet addresses, making well-know marks a constant target for others who wish to divert traffic to their website.  It has been held in many UDRP cases that the addition of a new top-level domain (TLD), and the addition of one or more letters, and even words, are not enough to defeat the likelihood of confusion.  Here, the domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered mark, but for the new TLD.  The fact that the new TLD is “.us,” and Respondent is not a U.S. company, only adds to the confusion, and the likelihood that Respondent expected to capitalize on Complainant’s well-known mark.



Complainant’s request for the transfer of the domain name to Complainant is GRANTED, and the domain name shall be TRANSFERRED.




Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2002







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page