losango.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Complainant is Losango Promotora de Vendas Ltda., a company based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with its principal place of business at Rua do Carmo 27, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20011-020, Brazil.

The Respondent is Italo de Barros Naddeo, a Brazilian citizen, with mailing address at Rua Antonio Fraga 151, Florestal, Minas Gerais, CEP 35690-000, Brazil.

The domain name at issue is "losango.com". The Registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. ("the Registrar"), 505 Huntmar Park Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20170, USA.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (henceforth "The Center") received the Complaint by e-mail on August 14, 2000, and on August 22, 2000, in hardcopy. The Complainant paid the required fee.

NSI’s Verification Response was received by The Center on September 24, 2000, confirming to be the registrar for the domain name in question, "losango.com", which is registered in the Respondents’ name.

On October 4, 2000, the Center sent the Notification of Complaint to the Respondent, under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The Respondent did not answer to the Complaint within the established deadline . The Center hence sent to the parties the Notification of Respondent Default on October 31, 2000.

On November 16, 2000, The Center appointed the undersigned as the sole member of the Administrative Panel.

Complainant is LOSANGO PROMOTORA DE VENDAS LTDA., a company established in Rio de Janeiro and is the leading consumer finance company in Brazil.

For more than 30 years, Complainant has been providing consumer finance in Brazil, acting directly in partnership with retailers throughout the country. Complainant is part of the British Lloyds TSB Group, retail banking organization with more than 230 years of global operations.

Complainant provided copies (exhibits 08 to 11 of its complaint) of certificates for two trademark registrations issued by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, both concerning trademark "LOSANGO". Both registrations refer to specifically "banking, credit, financing and investment services" from Brazilian class 36 (36.10).

While registration 818.628.260, which refers to the mark "LOSANGO" in a special script, was granted on October 28, 1997, registration 800.242.181, concerning the word mark "LOSANGO" was granted on December 21, 1982 and renewed for a new ten-year period on December 21, 1992.

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the domain name "losango.com" is identical to and confusingly similar with their registered trademark LOSANGO, registered in Brazil since 1982 in connection with credit and financial services in all the country.

Complainant is the titleholder of the domain name "losango.com".br, registered before the Brazilian Agency responsible for registering local domain names, FAPESP.

Besides, Complainant also holds several other domain names composed by the expression LOSANGO, all registered before the above indicated FAPESP.

Additionally Complainant holds rights derived of the trade name LOSANGO PROMOTORA DE VENDAS LTDA, since 1994.

In sum, Complainant shows evidence of substantial goodwill and name recognition in the expression LOSANGO, based on its intensive use in a long term basis.

Once aware of the registration of the subject domain name, the Complainant addressed a cease and desist letter to the Registrants, demanding the prompt stop of the unauthorized use of the mark and the immediate transfer of the registration of the domain to them. No response was addressed to the Complainant.

On May 9, 2000, according to the Complainant, a telephone conversation with the Respondent took place, in which he agreed to transfer the domain name to the Complainant depending on an offer. However, the parties did not reach any agreement concerning what this offer consisted of.

B. Respondent

Although duly notified of the Complaint, Respondent did not answer to it.

The Policy, in its paragraph 4 (a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:

i. the subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

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

iii. respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identity or confusing similarity between domain name and the Complainant’s trademark:

Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel understands that the Complainant presented competent proof to have rights on the mark LOSANGO, which is registered in Brazil as of 1982 and being used regularly in that country. Further, the Panel finds that the subject domain name, "losango.com" is indeed identical to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the domain name registered by the Respondent.

Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements is present in this dispute.

B. Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name:

The Panel understands that the expression "LOSANGO" is indeed linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also is the main part of the Complainant’s trade name.

Further, the Complainant provided enough evidence of the renown of the mark LOSANGO in the country. Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent, as a Brazilian citizen living in the country could not be unaware of the mark LOSANGO and its direct relation to the Complainant.

Besides, there is no evidence that the Respondent trades or offers any goods under the LOSANGO mark. In fact, as shows attachment 88, Respondent directed the domain name in question to a site widely known to promote domain name auctions, namely "domainsbank.com".

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, for this reason being present in the dispute the second element.

C. Existence of bad faith in Respondents’ registration and use of the domain name:

It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has registered the domain name "losango.com" with the purpose of selling it to the rightful trademark owner.

Once summoned by the letter sent by the Complainant, the Respondent did not answer. Further, the Respondent apparently forced the Complainant to offer an amount in exchange of the transfer of the domain name. 

In addition, the Respondent registered another domain name which is a reproduction of another famous Brazilian trademark registered in the name of a third party, "oglobo.com", being "O GLOBO" the mark that identifies one of the most prestigious Brazilian newspapers. 

The Panel understands that all evidence as above shows that the Registrant obtained the registration and has been using the domain name in question in bad faith.

The Panel, hence, finds present the third element.

As outlined above, the Panel concludes that the domain name "losango.com" is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark LOSANGO; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain name "losango.com" be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira

December 18, 2000