Granarolo S.p.A. v. Publinord s.r.l. d/b/a
Gilberto Ramponi Rivelli
Claim Number: FA0603000653822
PARTIES
Complainant is Granarolo S.p.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Luca Sandri, P.zza Castello, 26, Milan Italy. Respondent is Publinord s.r.l. d/b/a Gilberto Ramponi Rivelli (“Respondent”), represented by Gianluca Della Giovampaola, Piazza Minghetti n.3, 40124, Bologna Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <granarolo.info>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 6, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on March 9, 2006.
On March 7, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <granarolo.info>
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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 15, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of April 4, 2006 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@granarolo.info by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April
4, 2006.
An additional submission was sent by Complainant on April 5, 2006. This submission does not comply with
Supplemental Rule 7. Although the Panel
would have the discretion to accept this deficient submission (see section (a)
of Discussion below), it finds that it is not necessary to do so, for the
reasons laid out in section (b) of Discussion below.
On April 11, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
An additional submission was sent by Respondent on April 17, 2006. This submission complied with Supplemental
Rule 7 and was considered by the Panel.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant, Granarolo
S.p.A., is at the hub of one of the main food groups in Italy. Set up in 1957
on the basis of a small cooperative society at the gates of Bologna, the
company has gradually grown until it achieved the dimensions and importance of
a key player in the Italian milk and cheese industry in the 1980’s. Today Complainant’s group is the fourth
largest fully Italian food group.
According to Complainant, it owns numerous registered trademarks to identify, among
other things, milk and milk products, jams and
fruit sauces. These trademarks have
been used continuously and extensively used by Complainant since at least
1987. In
addition to the famous GRANAROLO and YOMO marks, the Group holds a series of
sub-brands and minor trademarks, with are utilized together with the national
brands. In particular these sub- brands are: Prima Natura Bio;
Pettinicchio Merlo; Centrale del Latte di Milano; Accadì; Vivi
Vivo;Centrale di Parma;Arturo Vogliazzi Alta Gastronomia; Elleaà;
Prima Natura etc.
Since
1995, Complainant and its GRANAROLO mark have been present on all national TV
channels with advertising campaigns for high quality fresh milk, the new
semi-skimmed fresh milk <Piacere Leggero>, and <Accadì>
the delactosed milk produced by Centrale del Latte di Milano.
Complainant is also registrant, since 1997, of the <granarolo.it>
domain name. Complainant is well known
by Internet users.
According to Complainant, Respondent is an Italian company whose main
activity is consultancy in the field of artistic works, publicity, and advertising
and public relations. Respondent’s
registration of the domain name in question has the effect of blocking the
Complainant’s ability to reflect its own company name and trade marks in the
said domain name.
The
distinctive sign GRANAROLO mark possesses a high degree of individuality,
arbitrariness and distinctiveness, without considering the massive advertising
through various forms of press effected nationwide, which has inevitably and
unquestionably further increased the distinctiveness and notoriety of the
GRANAROLO mark. As a consequence, the
domain name at issue is, according to Complainant, identical or confusingly
similar to its registered marks.
The
Complainant notes the Respondent (also an Italian entity) was well aware
(having both actual and /or constructive notice) of the commercial reputation
of the GRANAROLO mark and that of its various trademarks that were, and have at
all relevant times been, famous and well-known nationwide, even over the
Internet. Respondent could not ignore
the existence of Complainant, since both companies have their registered
offices in Bologna.
Complainant evidences that Respondent has no authorization or license
to use the GRANAROLO mark and can show none of the circumstances contemplated
by the Policy paragraph 4(c). In the Daniel
C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al., D2000-0598 (WIPO Aug.
16, 2000), the panel stated that, “In light of the uniqueness of the name
DanMarino.com, which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s personal name
and common law trademark, it would be extremely difficult to foresee any
justifiable use that the Respondent could claim.” See Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18,
2000). Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that Respondents have no rights or
legitimate interest in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).”
According to
Complainant, it is therefore clear that Respondent, thus acting, did not wish
to purse any lawful purpose, being completely aware that, in so acting, it
would have infringed, as well as diluted and tarnished, Complainant’s rights
over its trademark and its company name.
The registration of the aforesaid domain name by Respondent was in fact
made for the sole purpose of misdirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s
corporate web site to Respondent’s business web site, with the sole aim of
increasing its notoriety and advertising its business.
Complainant
would further allege that Respondent is not new to such kind of practice,
considering that it has for some considerable time been the owner of many other
domain names (none of which has any phonetic or logical link to the company or
trading name of the Respondent, and which are therefore all used by way of
catching the unwary Internet surfer) all resolving to the same web site,
registered for the sole purpose of promoting its activity, as is happening for
the disputed domain name. Respondent is
therefore engaged in a pattern of registering domain names. Such circumstances provide evidence of Respondent’s
bad faith, since it is clear that the registration of the contested domain name
was made for personal gain only, as happened for the registration of all the
other domain names above mentioned.
According to Complainant, none of the aforesaid web sites have been
developed; all of them publish the same Publinord advertising page.
Complainant cites Bahá’ís v. Buy This Name, D2001-1302 (WIPO
Dec. 18, 2001), in which the disputed domain name was used for a pornographic
site.
According to
Complainant, from the factual background set out above, Complainant has given
proof of its world-wide notoriety, as well as the fact that it is famous and
known by the GRANAROLO mark. Thanks to
the considerable investments in advertising and numerous press articles, the
GRANAROLO mark has acquired further distinctiveness, so that all of the
nationwide consumers and the Internet users, on seeing or hearing the word
GRANAROLO, localize and identify solely with the Complainant (rather than any
geographical location or other business entity).
The strength and distinctiveness of Complainant’s famous trademarks,
reinforced by their continuous and exclusive use as well as through the
investments in advertising made, make it obvious that Respondent knew or should
have known of the existence of the GRANAROLO marks and of Complainant’s
notoriety at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. See Dama SpA v. NAK Group Inc,
D2001-1203 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2001); see also Siba AB v. Torbjörn Hellerstad, D2000-0146
(WIPO Apr. 28, 2000) (“It is obvious from the facts in the case, i.e. the prior
ownership by Complainant of identical trademark registration, the identity
between the dominating element SIBA in the corporate name and the domain name
at issue, the fact that the word SIBA has a high degree of individuality and
distinctiveness and the fact that it is highly improbable that the Respondent
has selected the name without first having noticed the Complainant´s trademark
registration and its reputation in the word SIBA.”).
According to Complainant, it is highly improbable and inconceivable
that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without the prior knowledge
of the trademarks/distinctive signs of the Complainant, considering that (a)
Complainant’s products, inter alia, are distributed in the Italian
market and that (b) the trademark GRANAROLO is well known in the
Internet!. Furthermore, it is
inconceivable that the Respondent could make any active use of the disputed
domain names without creating a false impression of association with the
Complainant and so making a good faith use of the disputed domain name. See Strålfors AB v. P D S AB,
D2000-0112 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (“It is obvious from the facts in the
case, i.e. the prior ownership by Complainant of identical trademark
registrations, the identity between the dominating element STRALFORS in the
corporate names and the domain name at issue, the fact that the word STRALFORS
has a high degree of individuality and distinctiveness and the fact that it is
highly improbable that the Respondent has selected the name without first
having noticed the Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations and its wide
reputation in the word STRALFORS, the non-contested statement in the
Complaint.”). Respondent in the present
case had therefore no conceivable legitimate interest in making the relevant
registrations.
According to Complainant, in the
light of all the above facts it is therefore inconceivable and implausible that
the Respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain name without
creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or
affiliation with the Complainant, or endorsement of the web site located at the
disputed domain name and so making a legitimate and good faith use of the
contested domain name. See Strålfors
AB v. P D S AB, D2000-0112 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000); see also PACE
Anti-Piracy, Inc. v. Interlok, FA 104559 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 20, 2002); see
also Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, D2001-0148 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001).
Further, according to Complainant, the aim of the Respondent was (is)
to tarnish and to dilute its commercial reputation and trademark.
B. Respondent
According to Respondent, its legitimacy and good faith in registering
the disputed domain name is clearly proven by the fact that its use is part of
an extensive project to supply network users with as much information as
possible about Italian municipalities, a project that is still in the final
stages of completion and that, up to now, has been completed only for the
municipalities of the Emilia-Romagna region.
Since both parties are subject to the jurisdiction of Italian courts,
and since Respondent has filed a proceeding in Italian courts with respect to
the issues in the present case, Respondent requests the Panel to dismiss or
suspend the proceedings, in order “to avoid unnecessary duplication of the
decision between the same parties on the same dispute”, and to avoid possibly
conflicting decisions.
In the brief filed with the Italian courts (annexed to the Response,
and considered by the Panelist, who is fluent in Italian), Respondent alleges
that GRANAROLO is the name of a town in Italy and that, therefore, Complainant
cannot claim exclusive rights to the use of the string GRANAROLO. Further, Respondent alleges that that
registration of the mark GRANAROLO may be in violation of Italian trademark
law, since it may not be sufficiently distinctive.
In addition, Respondent cites Italian case-law to the effect that
weakly distinctive names containing geographic names (such as “Modena on line”)
do not give rise to protection against domain name registrations, absent other
factors.
Respondent also alleges that use of the top level domain “.info” makes
it clear that the purpose of the site is to provide information, so there
cannot be any confusion with respect to Complainant’s activities, which are of
a commercial nature.
Further, Respondent alleges that no confusion is possible because its
field of activity is very different from that of Complainant. And it alleges that Complainant is not
harmed in any way by Respondent’s registration of the contested domain name
because Complainant operates a web site at the <www.granarolo.it> domain
name. Further, according to Respondent,
the domain name under “.it” is the most appropriate one for Complainant, given
that Italy is the center of its activities.
Respondent asserts, further, that it did not register or use the
disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.
In conclusion, according to Respondent, the Complaint should be
rejected.
C. Additional Submissions
For the reasons given in (a) below, the Panel did not consider the
Complainant’s Additional Submission.
The Respondent’s Additional Submission was considered by the
Panel. That submission repeats the
arguments contained in the Response regarding stay or termination of these
proceedings. Since those arguments have
already been summarized above, they will not be summarized again.
Respondent’s Additional Submission also appears to rebut arguments made
in Complainant’s procedurally deficient Additional Submission. But the Panel did not consider the
Complainant’s Additional Submission, so it is not necessary to summarize here
the Respondents arguments in that respect.
Respondent’s Additional Submission also advances arguments regarding
the substance of the case, arguments that were contained in the Respondent’s
brief filed with the Italian court, and which have already been summarized
above (and which will not be summarized again).
In addition, Respondent’s Additional Submission alleges that the
Complainant is acting in bad faith and is using delaying tactics by unjustly
accusing the Respondent and persisting in applying for redress under the Policy
after it had been made aware of the initiation of proceedings in Italian
courts.
Finally, Respondent’s Additional Submission calls upon the Panel to
decide the dispute, if it denies Respondent’s request for stay or termination,
on the basis of Italian national law, since both parties are Italian.
Respondent requests that the Panel terminate these proceedings. In the alternative, to decide the case on
the basis of Italian law, to dismiss the Complaint, to declare that its
registration of the disputed domain name is legitimate, and to declare its full
and legitimate ownership of the disputed domain name.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a well-known Italian company engaged in the food
business.
Complainant is the owner of numerous registered marks containing the
string GRANAROLO.
GRANAROLO is the name of a town in Italy.
Respondent is an Italian company whose main activity is consultancy in
the field of artistic works, publicity, and advertising and public relations.
Respondent is creating a web site with a view to providing users with
information on Italian towns.
Respondent has registered numerous domain names, under a variety of
top-level domains, containing the names of towns in Northern Italy. Some of those domain names point to sites
containing specific information for the town in question, others point to a
generic publicity page.
DISCUSSION
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.”
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 and is being used in bad faith.
Before addressing the substance of the case, the Panel must address
three procedural issues:
(a) whether to admit the
deficient Additional Submission from Complainant.
(b) whether to terminate or
stay these proceedings as requested by Respondent.
(c) whether to allow Respondent to file an additional submission regarding the substance of the case.
(a) Whether to admit the deficient Additional Submission from
Respondent
Respondent’s deficient Additional Submission addresses the question of
whether or not the Panel should stay or terminate these proceedings.
There is no doubt that, under paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has
discretion to consider the Respondent’s Additional Submission, despite its not
complying with Supplemental Rule 7. As
the Panel stated in Svenska Örtmedicinska Institutet AB v. Swedish
Herbal Institute, Ltd, D2003-0509 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2003), with respect to
deficient communications from Complainant replying to Respondent’s request for
stay or termination:
The Panel received these unsolicited submissions in
order to determine whether to admit them into evidence and, finding them
relevant and that the Complainant could not reasonably have been expected to
anticipate the Respondent’s motion nor to have included the material in its
Complaint, decided to admit them.
However, for the reasons set forth in (b) below, the Panel holds that
it need not consider the Additional Submission in the present case.
(b) Whether to terminate or stay these proceedings
In McNeil Ohio Corporation v. National Advertising, Inc., D2001-0409 (WIPO Jun. 21, 2001) the Panel exercised its discretion, under Paragraph 18(a) of the Rules, to terminate the proceedings, because a national court had issued a preliminary injunction “transferring the domain name to the custody of the Court.” The Panel’s decision in that case is easy to understand, since the disputed domain name was no longer in the hands of any private party: it was in the hands of the national court. That is, of course, a rather unusual situation.
Indeed, the preponderance of case
law under the Policy suggests that it is very unusual for a Panel to terminate
or stay proceedings under the Policy.
The basic reason for Panelists’ reluctance to terminate or stay proceedings
is that the issues addressed by national courts are not necessarily identical
to the issues addressed by Panels, and that the national laws applying to those
issues are not necessarily identical to the provisions of the Policy (for
example, national laws typically do not include the concept of “bad faith
registration and use” in provisions related to trademark violation). That is, there is not necessarily any
duplication between the decisions of national courts and the decisions of
Panels under the Policy. For example,
in Cognigen Networks, Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research a/k/a
Cognigen Corporation, D2001-1094 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2001), the panel states:
There is no provision in the Policy that divests an ICANN panel of its discretion to continue an administrative proceeding in view of another proceeding between the same parties concurrently occurring in a different forum, as here.
In that regard, paragraph 4(k) of the Policy states in pertinent part: "The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded." Hence, while the Panel views this administrative proceeding as mandatory on the Respondent by virtue of the dispute resolution provision in its registration agreement, nevertheless either party has the option, at its sole discretion, of instituting litigation in a court of law before this proceeding is commenced or after it has been concluded. The Complainant, by instituting a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Washington during July 2001, and prior to the filing of the Complaint here (on September 4, 2001), has simply done just that.
Moreover, as the Panel reads the Complaint, the relief which the Complainant seeks, which is predicated on allegations of federal trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law, does not specifically include the relief sought through this proceeding; namely, cancellation of the contested domain name. The allegations raised and the relief sought by the Complainant through its parallel proceeding extend well beyond those issues which this Panel can consider and the relief it can provide through the present administrative proceeding.
Moreover, since both the Complaint and Response have been filed in this proceeding, hence providing the Panel with the documents necessary for it to proceed, the Panel has decided, in accordance with the discretion granted it under paragraph 18(a) of the Rules, to: (a) deny the Respondent's request to dismiss this proceeding, and, as such, (b) consider these filings and proceed to decision in this matter.
Similar reasoning can be found in numerous other decisions, for
example, AB SKF and SKF Beaings India Limited v. Vikas Pagaria, D2001-0867 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2001); Las Vegas Sands, Inc .v. The Sands of the
Caribbean, D2001-1157 (WIPO
Apr. 25, 2002); Yanmar Co., Ltd. v. Yanmar Marine Devakumar Ramasamy,
D2004-0365 (WIPO Jul. 5, 2004); Western Holdings, LLC v. JPC Enterprise, LLC
d/b/a Cutting Edge Fitness and d/b/a Strivectin SD Sales & Distribution,
D-2004-0426 (WIPO Aug. 5, 2004).
In the present case, Respondent has filed an action in Italian courts
essentially arguing that, under Italian law, Complainant cannot claim exclusive
rights—or perhaps even a trademark at all—for the GRANAROLO mark because this
is the name of a town.
Such arguments, while significant, are not arguments that can be
considered by this Panel. As the Panel
stated in America Online, Inc. v. Ian West d/b/a Art Of Living, FA
638005 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2006):
[I]t is beyond the
scope of this Panel to determine—apart from a clear and obvious prima facie
case (such as use of a well-known commercial name to point to an adult
entertainment site), which is not apparent here—whether Respondent’s use of the
contested domain name might violate US or UK trademark or unfair competition
law. Such issues should be addressed by
the competent national courts.
Thus, the work of this Panel cannot duplicate the work of the national
court, and there is no reason to terminate or stay these proceedings.
Further, for the reasons given above, the Panel holds that Complainant
did not act improperly by continuing this procedure after it had been notified
that a case had been filed in the Italian courts.
(c) Whether to allow Respondent to file an additional submission
Respondent has requested that, in case its motion to terminate or stay
the proceedings is rejected, it be allowed to submit an additional submission
on the substance of the case.
Normally, in accordance with Rule 10(b), such a request should be
granted.
However, the Respondent has attached to its Response the submission it
made to the Italian courts. The
Panelist is fluent in Italian and finds that that submission contains
sufficient information to allow the Panel to proceed to a decision in the case,
without the need for additional submissions.
Thus, the Panel will now address the substantive issues.
It is obvious that the domain name registered
by the Respondent is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights.
According to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy,
“any of the following circumstances, in particular but without
limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all
evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to
the domain name”:
[I]f before any
notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use,
the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services
It is not disputed that the Respondent has
been using the disputed domain name to develop a web site, or, more accurately,
a series of web sites, containing information on at least some towns in
Northern Italy.
The question before this Panel is whether
such use of the contested domain name can be legitimate, as the Respondent
alleges, or cannot possibly be legitimate, as the Complainant alleges, because
Complainant’s mark is so famous that no unlicensed use by any other party could
possibly be legitimate.
In America Online, Inc. v. Ian West d/b/a Art Of Living, FA
638005 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 10, 2006) the Panel stated:
[I]t is beyond the
scope of this Panel to determine—apart from a clear and obvious prima facie case
(such as use of a well-known commercial name to point to an adult entertainment
site), which is not apparent here—whether Respondent’s use of the contested
domain name might violate US or UK trademark or unfair competition law. Such issues should be addressed by the
competent national courts.
The same conclusion holds in the present
case: it is not within the scope of the Panel to determine whether the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is illegitimate under Italian
trademark or unfair competition or other laws, since the Respondent’s use is
not, prima facie, illegitimate, and the fact-finding required to
determine whether or not the Respondent’s actual use is illegitimate under
Italian law cannot be carried out efficiently or economically within the Rules
and the Policy.
Complainant cites numerous cases where Panels
have found that a respondent’s use of a domain name was not legitimate. All those cases must be distinguished from
the present case, because in each of the cited cases the domain name was either
used for adult entertainment activities, or the Respondent did not explain
plausibly why its use of the domain name might be legitimate. Further, in the cited cases, the domain
names were clearly distinctive—as opposed to being the name of a town, as in
the present case.
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has
not satisfied its burden of proving that Respondent does not have legitimate
interests in the contested domain name.
This finding is, of course, without prejudice to the findings of the
Italian courts with respect to this matter.
Respondent argues that its use of the top
level domain “.info” is evidence of its good faith, since the purpose of that
top level domain is to provide information, not commercial activities.
In principle, this argument might be
valid. Indeed, this argument has been
used by national courts, as cited in Bridgestone
Firestone, Inc. v. Myers, D2000-0190 (WIPO Jul. 6, 2000). As
the Panel stated in National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Contra
Costa v. Mary Rae Fouts, FA
204074 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Nov. 28,
2003):
Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that Internet users would tend to look for information on the Complainant within the top level domain “.com”. Complainant is a non-profit organization. The types of organizations that should be registered in the several top level domain names are defined in IETF RFC 1591, clause 2 of which states:
“COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. … ”
Thus, Complainant could be expected to have registered a domain name in a domain other than “.com”, which is in fact the case, since the Complainant’s web site is in the top level domain “.org”.
However, the argument fails in the present
case.
According to material published by ICANN, the top level domain name “.info” was meant to be, when it was created, “an un-sponsored, unrestricted generic top-level domain registry” (see C.1 at http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/info1.html ).
Thus, it cannot be said the top level domain “.info” is somehow targeted at “information” as opposed to commercial activities. That is, no inference can or should be drawn regarding the type of activity from the mere fact that a name is registered under “.info”.
In support of its allegations of bad faith by the Respondent, Complainant notes, correctly, that Respondent has registered a large number of domain names, many of which point to a generic publicity page. It is true that Respondent has decided to implement its portal of information on Italian towns by registering an individual domain name for each and every town, and that this is an unusual, inefficient, and surprising way of implementing the portal (as opposing to the usual method of using sub-domains within a single domain name).
While Respondent’s choice is unusual, and even surprising, the Panel does not consider that that choice, on its own, provides sufficient evidence of bad faith. Indeed, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with registering a large number of domain names, provided such registration does not conflict with the Policy.
The Panel holds
that the Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proving that the
Respondent registered and is using the contested domain name in bad faith. This
finding is, of course, without prejudice to the findings of the Italian courts
with respect to this matter.
DECISION
For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 24, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum