WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rado Uhren AG v. DnsAdmin DnsAdmin, Turkticaret.net Yazilim Hizm. San. ve Tic. A.S.

Case No. D2018-0803

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Rado Uhren AG of Lengnau, Switzerland, represented by Steven M. Levy, Esq., United States of America ("United States").

The Respondent is DnsAdmin DnsAdmin, Turkticaret.net Yazilim Hizm. San. ve Tic. A.S. of Bursa, Turkey.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <rado.ist> and <rado.istanbul> ("Disputed Domain Names") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 11, 2018. On April 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On April 12, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 9, 2018.

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 24, 2018. 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 established in Switzerland and is a leading designer, manufacturer, seller and retailer of wristwatches worldwide. The Complainant has been operating under the RADO trade mark for almost 100 years, and holds registered rights in the RADO trade mark, including International, United States and European Union registrations.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names on June 14, 2017. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to Registrar parking websites with pay-per-click links, which include links to competitors of the Complainant.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:

(a) The Complainant owns registered rights in the RADO trade mark worldwide, including International, United States and European Union trade mark registrations, the earliest of which was registered on April 27, 1965.

(b) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's RADO trade mark. The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extensions ".ist" and ".istanbul" do nothing to detract from the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant's RADO trade mark. In fact, they add to the confusion, as the Complainant sells products to retailers in Istanbul.

(c) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to pay-per-click pages, which include links to competitors of the Complainant. The Respondent cannot be said to be using the Disputed Domain Names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or the term "Rado", and does not own any trade mark rights in the RADO mark. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to confuse and misleadingly divert consumers away from the Complainant's website, or to tarnish the Complainant's RADO trade mark. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.

(d) The Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's rights in the RADO trade mark, as the Complainant registered its trade marks long before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. Further, some of the pay-per-click links on the parking pages of the Disputed Domain Names refer to the Complainant. The Respondent must have registered the Disputed Domain Names with the intent to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its parking pages, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's RADO trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the parking page.

(e) The Complainant's representative sent demand letters to the Respondent on February 6, 2018, with follow up letters on February 13 and 27, 2018. Despite these communications, the Respondent never responded.

B. Respondent

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

The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the failure of the Respondent to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403).

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the RADO trade mark, based on its International, United States and European Union registrations.

The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the Complainant's RADO trade mark in its entirety. It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the gTLD extensions, in this case ".ist" and ".istanbul", may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-0762). The Disputed Domain Names are therefore identical to the Complainant's RADO trade mark.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") states that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel accepts that the Complainant registered and began using the RADO trade mark many years before the Disputed Domain Names were registered by the Respondent, and the Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. As the Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant's evidence.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to them of the dispute, the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if they have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, or a name corresponding to it. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to parking pages that contains a number of sponsored links, including links to competitors of the Complainant. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent earns pay-per-click revenue in relation to such sponsored links. The Respondent cannot be said to be offering any bona fide goods or services via the Disputed Domain Names, or to be making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.

While parking pages may be permissible in some circumstances, under section 2.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0, a parking page would not by itself confer rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, especially where a disputed domain name was registered with a trade mark owner's mark in mind in the hope and expectation that confused Internet users searching for the trade mark owner will be directed to the respondent's parking page for commercial gain. Such activity does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy (Owens Corning v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1143).

In this case, the parking pages, to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve, include direct references and pay-per-click links to the websites of the Complainant's competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant's RADO mark in order to increase its pay-per-click revenue, which cannot amount to a legitimate interest or right.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has been using the RADO trade mark for nearly a century, and first obtained a trade mark registration for the RADO trade mark in 1965, which was long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. It also cannot be mere coincidence that the related searches and sponsored links that appear on the parking pages to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve include links and references to watches, which are the products sold by the Complainant under its RADO trade mark. The sponsored links on the Respondent's parking pages also direct users to competitors of the Complainant (see Villeroy & Boch AG v. Whois Data Shield/Hong Kong Names LLC., WIPO Case No. D2008-1300 and Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. Technilab, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1774). The Panel finds that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Respondent must have registered the Disputed Domain Names with the Complainant's mark in mind, in order to misdirect Internet users who are searching for the Complainant to the Respondent's parking pages.

Using a domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain, in an effort to trade on the Complainant's goodwill, is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy (Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Domain OZ, WIPO Case No. D2000-0057). The Panel is of the opinion that this is a clear case of cbyersquatting and that the Respondent deliberately registered the Disputed Domain Names with the intent to divert Internet users from the Complainant's website to the Respondent's parking pages, and constitutes bad faith registration and use.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <rado.ist> and <rado.istanbul> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 7, 2018