AUDI AG v. QingJun Niu
Claim Number: FA1608001687083




   Complainant: AUDI AG of Ingolstadt, Germany
Complainant Representative: HK2 Rechtsanwälte Philip Koch of Berlin, Germany

   Respondent: QingJun Niu of Xin Yi, Jiangsu, II, CN


   Registries: CAR Registry
   Registrars: GoDaddy


   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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: August 5, 2016
   Commencement: August 5, 2016
   Default Date: August 22, 2016
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant is a worldwide famous car manufacturer and the owner of numerous national and international trademarks “Audi”, particularly German Trademark registration no. 39941866 “Audi”, registered for classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, International Registration no. 716147 registered for classes 02, 07, 08, 09, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, and, inter alia, designated for China, and Community Trademark registration no. 009930751 registered for all classes, except class 36. The status and confirmation of use of this mark are supported by relevant entries with the Clearinghouse, copies of which are attached to the complaint.


Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The disputed domain name incorporates the AUDI trademark in it's entirety, adding only the suffix "car", which, being a top-level domain, is not relevant for the assessment whether the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark in question. The Examiner thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “Audi” trademark.

[URS] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The domain name resolves to a web page displaying a notice “website coming soon”. Given that Complainant has not authorized Registrant to use its trademark “Audi” or to register the domain name; Registrant is not commonly known by the name; the domain name is not being put to any legitimate use, it is thus found that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

[URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Compalainant’s rights in the “Audi” trademark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by 50 years. Complainant’s mark is famous and has strong reputation which was also recognized by previous panels. Respectively, in view of the fame of the mark and the direct relation of the TLD .car to Complainant’s principal business, one could easily resolve that Respondent registered its domain name having Complainant’s trademark in mind in an effort to trade off the goodwill and renown of Complainant's marks. Previous Panels have found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely that the registrant would have selected the domain name without knowing about the fame and reputation of the well-known trademark corresponding to the domain name in question. Registrant’s passive use of the domain name serves yet another evidence of bad faith.


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. audi.car


Natalia Stetsenko
Dated: August 25, 2016



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page