The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 13, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On December 16, 2013, the Center transmitted the Complaint Deficiency Notification by email to the Complainant. On the same day, the Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint in response to the Complaint Deficiency Notification.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2013. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on December 17, 18, 19, 2013 and January 10, 2014 respectively. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 7, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of the commencement of the panel appointment process on January 8, 2014.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a manufacturer of cars sold under the trademark PORSCHE.

It owns numerous registrations for the trademark PORSCHE in class 12 including International Registration No. 562572 in China. The Complainant distributes its cars through official dealers. Official dealers are authorized to register domain names made up of PORSCHE and the dealer’s geographic location. Examples in China include:

<porsche-beijing-central.com>

<porsche-dalian.com>

<porsche-dongguan.com>

The Respondent registered the disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche‑jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> on August 24, 2013

Dongying, Jining, Weihai and Zibo are all cities in Shandong Province of China.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark PORSCHE. Only geographic descriptions have been added to the trademark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; that there is no relationship between the parties; and that the Respondent is making commercial use of the disputed domain names by re-directing them to parking pages.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademark in the corresponding domain name (contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy and to attract Internet users to the parking pages (contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply substantively to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent did send three emails to the Center in response to the Complaint; one in Chinese and English and two in Chinese. The Respondent essentially said that it could not understand the professional English used in the Complaint and would leave it to the Panel to decide the case justly.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche-jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> are all made up of the registered trademark PORSCHE plus the names of four cities in China.

According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).

The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark PORSCHE.

The Panel finds that the first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not formally responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.

None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.

The Panel finds the second part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith.

This case, where the disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with sponsored links, clearly falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:

“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

In addition, the registration of four domain names comprised of the trademark PORSCHE together with geographical place names will prevent the Complainant (or its authorized dealers) from reflecting the trademark in corresponding domain names contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche-jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2014