National Arbitration Forum




Daimler AG v. Auto Seubert GmbH c/o Bernhard Seubert

Claim Number: FA0807001213551



Complainant is Daimler AG (“Complainant”), represented by Jan Zecher, of Fish & Richardson P.C., Germany.  Respondent is Auto Seubert GmbH c/o Bernhard Seubert (“Respondent”), represented by Jutta Niermann, of Dr. Hintermayer & Kollegen, Germany.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot.



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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 2, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 7, 2008.


On July 3, 2008, Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot has verified that Respondent is bound by the Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot 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 July 10, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 30, 2008 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 30, 2008.

On August 6, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.



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



A. Complainant

The trademark MERCEDES-BENZ is a world-wide famous trademark.


The MERCEDES-BENZ trademark has been used by Complainant and its legal predecessors for more than a century.


In the last ten years, Complainant and its legal predecessors have sold annually millions of automobiles under the MERCEDES-BENZ trademark world-wide.


In the last decade, Complainant spent hundreds of millions of US-dollars on advertising and promoting products bearing its MERCEDES-BENZ trademark in a wide range of media, including print, radio, television and the Internet throughout the world.


Complainant does not sell only new cars, but also trades with used cars.


The used car business is of considerable economic importance to Complainant.


Complainant owns, inter alia, the following registered trademarks: German trademark registration no. 375,067 “Mercedes-Benz” (word mark) with priority of April 25, 1925, registered and used for, e.g., “automobiles”; European Community trademark registration no. 139,964 “Mercedes-Benz” (word mark) with priority of April 1st, 1996, registered and used for, e.g., “vehicles; financial affairs; repair; transport.”


Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 25, 2007.


Since then, it has been using the domain name for a web site on which Respondent offers

cars of various brands, including Audi, BMW, Fiat, Ford, Opel, Seat, Skoda, Toyota,

Volvo and Volkswagen.


Respondent is not a licensed dealer of Complainant.


The element “jahreswagen” in Respondent’s domain name is descriptive of used

automobiles, as it has the meaning: “one year old car”.


The domain name <> is confusingly similar to the

trademark MERCEDES-BENZ.


Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.


Respondent has not used the domain name before notice of the dispute for a bona

fide offering of goods or services, nor has it been commonly known by the domain

name, nor has it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the domain name.


Respondent acted in bad faith when registering and using the domain name.


B. Respondent

In its Response to the Complaint, Respondent declared as follows:


“Respondent agrees to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant…. Respondent requests that the Panel issues [sic] a decision that the domain registration be transferred to Complainant.”



Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following elements to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.       Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004;  see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). 



Respondent’s Response does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint. In particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Indeed Respondent joins in that request. Thus the parties have agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.


It is therefore Ordered that the <> domain name be



forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.






Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: August 14, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum