WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Geberit Holding AG v. John Martin

Case No. D2014-0347

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Geberit Holding AG of Jona, Switzerland, represented by Osborne Clarke, Germany.

The Respondent is John Martin, of Wakefield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <geberit.info> (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 6, 2014. On March 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 10, 2014, 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.

The Center verified that 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 March 12, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 2, 2014.

The Center appointed Anders Janson as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 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 one of the leading manufacturers of sanitary technology for use in buildings and it operates in 41 countries.

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark GEBERIT, registered on May 6, 1991, with registration No. 571872.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 13, 2001 and the registrar with which the domain name is registered is DNC Holdings Inc.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The legal grounds for the Complaint are Policy, paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, paragraph 3.

The Complainant believes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights according to the Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 2(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1).

The Complaint is based on the Complainant's international trademark with registration No. 571872. The Complainant is also the proprietor of a number of trademarks listed in the case file.

According to Magnum Piercing Inc., v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 it is sufficient to show that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark in order to establish identity or confusing similarity, which is also the case here.

The addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix such as ".info" may be disregarded for the determination of confusing similarity. This is according to the PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2006-0189. This is the case here as the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark without any distinguishing feature.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii); and the Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2). The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service rights. The Complainant did not consent to, license, or otherwise authorize the Respondent to use or register the Disputed Domain Name.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); the Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3). The Disputed Domain name incorporates and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, and the Respondent owns no trademark or other rights in the GEBERIT mark or any similar mark.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that the Respondent gave false information when registering the Disputed Domain Name. A company by the name "Intertrade" has not been registered in West Yorkshire at the time of the Disputed Domain Name registration. The registration of a domain name under a false identity is an element proving that the domain name was registered or maintained in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (see City of Hamina v. Paragon International Projects Ltd. WIPO Case No. D2001-0001).

The Respondent has no connection to the Disputed Domain Name as opposed to the Complainant which is one of the world-leading manufacturers on sanitary technology and is very well known under the name "Geberit". This, in connection with the Respondent's prior history of a bad-faith registration of domain names (see Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. John Martin, Intertrade Int. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-1846) indicates that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with the sole purpose of preventing the Complainant from using the Disputed Domain Name, see Policy, paragraph 4(b)(ii).

The bad-faith use is indicated by the use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect visitors to a competitor's website. By doing this the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark, company name and services, in order to benefit the goods and services of a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent therefore intentionally disrupts the business of the Complainant and is abusing the Complainant's reputation and good-will. Previous UDRP decisions also support the conclusion that a respondent's registration and use of a domain name for re-directing Internet users, particularly customers and potential customers of complainants, from complainant's website to the website of a company which directly competes with the complainant, constitutes bad faith. The Respondent has no legitimate use for the website. Parking of a contended domain name with the knowledge that it infringes the trademark of another constitutes evidence of bad faith.

Within less than 24 hours after the Complainant contacted the Respondent, the Respondent wrote in an e-mail on July 25, 2013 that it was willing to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a decent offer. This indicates that the Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to someone else for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name and in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in the corresponding Disputed Domain Name.

In accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, for the reasons described above, the Complainant requests the Administrative Panel appointed in this administrative proceeding that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights.

There are two parts to this element; the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Disputed Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

The Complainant is a leading manufacturer of sanitary technology for use in buildings and is the European market leader in sanitary technology with global presence. Complainant owns the international trademark GEBERIT with registration No. 571872 having effect in several countries. Accordingly, it is therefore established that the Complainant has rights in the trademark GEBERIT.

Regarding the question of identity or confusing similarity, what is required is simply a comparison and assessment of the Disputed Domain Name itself to the Complainant's trademark. The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant's trademark the suffix ".info" shall be disregarded for the determination of confusing similarity.

According to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), b(ix)(1), this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainants trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The website which resolves from the Disputed Domain Name consists of a short ten lines of code. The source code effectively integrates the content of another website. This website is maintained by a competitor of the Complainant in the sanitary technology market that offers identical goods and services to those of the Complainant. In this Panel's view, the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name is therefore not legitimate in any way.

Furthermore, the Complainant has not consented to, licensed, or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register the Disputed Domain Name.

According to the above mentioned, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has no connection to the Disputed Domain Name and has offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a "decent offer", which in this Panel's view indicates that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. The Respondent uses the website to redirect visitors to a competitor's website which indicates bad faith. This use of the website disrupts the business of the Complainant and abuses the Complainant's reputation and good-will.

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates and is identical to the Complainant's trademark and the Respondent owns no trademark or other rights in the GEBERIT mark or any similar mark. The Disputed Domain Name is therefore, according to the above mentioned reasons, registered and used in bad faith.

Therefore, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

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 name <geberit.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Anders Janson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2014