national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad & International Olympic Committee v. GBS Data System

Claim Number:  FA0505000479544

 

PARTIES

Complainants are Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad and International Olympic Committee (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by James L. Bikoff, of Silverberg Goldman & Bikoff, LLP, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 120, Washington, DC 20007.  Respondent is GBS Data System (“Respondent”), #05-118, 17 Teban Garden, Singapore 600017.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <beijing2008.org>, registered with Network Solutions LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 18, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 19, 2005.

 

On May 20, 2005, Network Solutions LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <beijing2008.org> is registered with Network Solutions LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions LLC 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 May 23, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 13, 2005 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@beijing2008.org by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 20, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

There are two named Complainants in this case: International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) and Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad (“BOCOG”).  It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

In this case, Complainant IOC has recognized the BOCOG as the National Olympic Committee for the country of China and responsible for the implementation and oversight of all aspects of the 2008 Olympic Games to be held in Beijing.  The Panel finds that Complainants have sufficiently demonstrated a proper affiliation for the purposes of the UDRP, and thus the Complaint may go forward with the two named Complainants.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <beijing2008.org> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BEIJING 2008 mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <beijing2008.org> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <beijing2008.org> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Respondent, GBS Data System, has failed to respond to the Complaint.  Thus, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and assertions set forth by Complainant as true and accurate and base all findings of fact on these assertions.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-Mktg., 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).

 

Complainant IOC is an international non-governmental, non-profit organization that serves as the umbrella organization of the Olympic Games.  In order to designate and differentiate each Olympic Games, IOC has a long history of using “city + year” date marks in connection with various Olympic Games since 1896 (i.e., ATHENS 1896, STOCKHOLM 1912, SYDNEY 2000 and ATHENS 2004). 

 

For over a century, IOC, its National Olympic Committees and local organizing committees have consistently taken measures to protect the “city + year” marks associated with the Olympic Games.  Co-complainant BOCOG is the local organizing committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing, China in 2008 and is responsible for the organization and protection of the BEIJING 2008 mark in China.

 

In 1993, BOCOG narrowly lost its bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games when Sydney, Australia was selected to host the Games by IOC.  After losing to Sydney by two votes, Beijing became the international favorite to host the Olympic Games in 2008, and instituted preparations to bid for the Olympic Games.  Beijing’s status as the front-runner for the 2008 Olympics was well known throughout the world.  For example, a February 17, 1997 article published in the Washington Post acknowledged “Beijing is the contender to beat for 2008.”

 

IOC has registered the BEIJING 2008 mark with numerous international trademark authorities, including the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (“SFIIP”) (Reg. No. 476,466 issued September 19, 2000), the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (Reg. Nos. 750,847 issued September 19, 2000), the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 1,842,814 issued August 29, 2001) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,739,492 issued July 22, 2003).

 

In addition to its trademark registrations, several nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece and China have passed national legislation to protect the intellectual property of IOC and its various local organizing committees as mandated in the Olympic Charter.  On April 1, 2002, China enacted the Regulations on Protection of Olympic Symbols, stating that the various IOC marks, including the BEIJING 2008 mark, are reserved for the exclusive use of IOC and BOCOG.  This legislation has been successfully used to prevent infringement of the BEIJING 2008 mark in China.

 

Respondent registered the <beijing2008.org> domain name on January 26, 1999.  At the time of Respondent’s registration, Beijing’s status as the city expected to host the 2008 Olympic Games was well known. 

 

Respondent has made no active use of the disputed domain name since registering it in 1999.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the BEIJING 2008 mark through its numerous trademark registrations for the mark with trademark authorities throughout the world as well as through statutory protection granted to Complainant in many nations worldwide for its various marks.  See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that 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.  The respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and that it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); see also Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Boyden, FA 201977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 19, 2003) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s evidence of rights in the OLYPMIC mark, particularly the statutory and trade mark registration protection in existence in the United States and elsewhere in the world.”).

 

Respondent’s <beijing2008.org> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BEIJING 2008 mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, adds the generic top-level domain “.org” and omits the space between the terms of Complainant’s mark.  The Panel finds that such minor changes are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding it is a “well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis”); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <beijing2008.org> domain name.  Respondent, in not submitting a response, has done nothing to rebut this assertion.  Thus, the Panel may interpret Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also 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).

 

Respondent’s <beijing2008.org> domain name is not being used in connection with any active website, nor has it been since Respondent registered the domain name in 1999.  The Panel finds that such nonuse of the disputed domain name is neither a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Ritz-Carlton Hotel v. Club Car Executive, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that prior to any notice of the dispute, the respondent had not used the domain names in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “the respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it”).

 

Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain name or authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s BEIJING 2008 mark.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent  has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <beijing2008.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Although Respondent’s January 26, 1999 registration of the <beijing2008.org> domain name predates Complainant’s registrations for the BEIJING 2008 mark, Respondent’s registration of the domain name was nevertheless in bad faith.  Complainant has provided overwhelming evidence that Beijing was recognized internationally as the front-runner to host the 2008 Olympic Games at the time of Respondent’s registration, and that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s strong connection to the BEIJING 2008 mark when it registered the disputed domain name.  Respondent, in not submitting a response, has done nothing to rebut Complainant’s assertions or provide any alternate explanation, so the Panel gives Complainant’s arguments a strong presumption of accuracy.  Thus, the Panel finds that registration of a domain name that is identical to another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of another’s rights in the mark is tantamount to bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See MADRID 2012, S.A. v. Scott Martin-MadridMan Websites, D2003-0598 (WIPO Oct. 8, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered the <madrid2012.com> domain name in bad faith despite the fact that the complainant had not registered the mark at the time of the domain name registration because Madrid’s bid for the 2012 Olympic Games had been well publicized months before the respondent’s domain name registration); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark).

 

Furthermore, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in any active function since registering it in 1999.  The Panel finds that such passive holding indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <beijing2008.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  June 28, 2005

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page