WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ford Motor Company v. Ahmet Peker, Antalya Web Tasarim

Case No. D2020-2894

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ford Motor Company, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Phillips Winchester, U.S.

The Respondent is Ahmet Peker, Antalya Web Tasarim, Turkey.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <fordcreditguide.com> and <forddealerships.net> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 2, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 4, 2020, 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 November 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 26, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 30, 2020.

The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2020. 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 was founded in 1903 in Dearborn, Michigan, and is a global automotive industry leader. Ford manufactures or distributes automobiles in approximately 200 markets across six continents, with over 150,000 employees and over 100 plants worldwide.

The Complainant has continuously used FORD brand in connection with automobiles and automobile parts and accessories since 1895 in the U.S. The trademark is currently ranked as the 42nd most valuable brand in the world on Interbrand’s annual survey of the “100 Most Valuable Global Brands.” In 2019, the year in which the disputed domain names were registered, the trademark FORD ranked as the 35th most valuable brand, and FORD brand has consistently ranked among the top fifty most valuable global brands.

The Complainant obtained its first U.S. trademark registration for FORD in 1909 (U.S. Reg. No. 74,530) and the Complainant currently has many registrations in the U.S. and worldwide for the FORD trademark. Some representative examples for the Complainant’s U.S. registrations are shown in the table below:

New and certified used Ford automobiles are sold through a network of Ford dealers. The Complainant operates at its official website “www.ford.com”, which includes a “Locate a Dealer” feature that enables visitors to locate nearby Ford dealerships.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (“Ford Credit”) is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford. Ford Credit is a Delaware limited liability company and also has its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. Ford Credit is one of the world’s largest automotive finance companies. Together with its affiliates, Ford Credit has supported the sale of Ford products since 1959, providing a wide variety of automotive financing products to Ford and Lincoln customers and dealers in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. Ford Credit’s primary business consists of originating and purchasing retail installment sale and lease contracts for new and used vehicles from Ford and Lincoln dealers. Ford Credit and its affiliates service hundreds of thousands of consumer loans. In 2019, the year in which the Respondent registered the domain name <fordcreditguide.com>, Ford Credit’s net income was USD 2,998 million.

Ford Credit is widely known by the name “Ford Credit”. It operates at its official website “www.fordcredit.com” and uses the name “Ford Credit” in official government filings.

The disputed domain name <fordcreditguide.com> was registered on October 12, 2019, and the disputed domain name <forddealerships.net> was registered on October 22, 2019. As far as the Complainant was able to determine, the only use that the Respondent has made of the disputed domain names was to imitate the Complainant’s official website. The websites to which the disputed domain names resolved were titled “Ford Credit”, with the subtitle “Ford Motor Credit Financing Automotive,” and included numerous images of Ford vehicles copied from the Complainant’s own marketing materials. The Complainant’s iconic “FORD blue oval” design trademark was prominently displayed. Nowhere was the Respondent’s identity or relationship with the Complainant (or lack thereof) stated. In addition, the websites bore the copyright notice of “Copyright © 2020. Ford Motor Credit Guide.” Many of the webpage hyperlinks, moreover, were labeled with titles that suggested the websites connected to the disputed domain names were operated by the Complainant, including “Ford Motor Credit Login Payment”, “Account Manager”, “Ford Owner Login”, “Ford Service Credit Card Application” and “Ford Motor Company Payments Online”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that each of the disputed domain names combines the famous FORD trademark with a term that is closely associated with its corporate name. The dolman name <forddealerships.net> combines the trademark FORD with the term “dealerships”. The domain name <fordcreditguide.com> combines the trademark FORD CREDIT with the term “guide”. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy. The association is not extinguished by addition of words or terms related to the trademark owner, and, in many cases, addition of such terms only increases the likelihood that the public will associate the domain name with the trademark owner.

The Respondent has no legitimate rights in the disputed domain names — the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names, has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the FORD trademarks in any way, has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and has never made any bona fide use of the disputed domain names.

The uses the Respondent has made of the disputed domain names do not establish legitimate rights. Use of a domain name to impersonate the trademark owner is not legitimate and cannot establish legitimate rights.

The Respondent’s websites are not clearly distinctive from the Complainant’s official website. In fact, the Complainant argues that they appear to have been deliberately designed to look like they are being operated by the Complainant. Each website is operated under a name that consists in unique and primary part of the FORD trademarks, and neither such names nor the disputed domain names themselves include any words or terms that would signal to website visitors that the associated websites are not affiliated with the Complainant. Nowhere on the websites is the Respondent identified as the website operator or is the relationship between the website operator and the Complainant explained. The websites prominently feature the Complainant’s world-famous “FORD blue oval” design trademark and copyrighted images the Respondent lifted directly from the Complainant’s websites and marketing materials, further infringing the Complainant’s rights and further contributing to the false impression that the Respondent’s websites are operated by the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that given the strength and fame of the FORD trademarks, the Respondent’s bad faith is established by the fact of registration alone. FORD falls within a select class of internationally strong marks that have become so famous that it is impossible for any respondent to claim that he was unaware of the Complainant’s prior rights. Indeed, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to display the Complainant’s unique design trademark and copyrighted auto images conclusively proves that the Respondent was aware of the trademark significance of the disputed domain names.

Further, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s bad faith is powerfully exhibited by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to host websites that the Respondent deliberately designed to appear as if they belong to and are being operated by the Complainant itself.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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 are being used in bad faith.

Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel holds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in full in the disputed domain names is evidence that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. Mere addition of the terms “credit guide” and “dealerships” in the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks.

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent will lead to this ground being set forth.

Refraining from submitting a Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain names.

The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner.

The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).

Furthermore, the unrebutted claim of the Complainant that the disputed domain names are being used for deliberately attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website in the mistaken belief that it was the website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant, supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds, also in light of the Panel’s findings below, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (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;

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

In the Panel’s view, a finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain names. In this case, the widespread commercial recognition of the trademark FORD is such that the Respondent, must have had knowledge of the trademark before registering the disputed domain names.

The Respondent appears to have chosen the disputed domain names in order to deliberately attract Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it was the website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant. That impression is only reinforced by the content of the Respondent’s site whereby the Complainant’s marks and content are included. In this Panel’s view, the use in bad faith is configured by the inclusion of the copyright notice at the bottom of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved together with the effective distribution and selling of the Complainant’s devices and products through the web page to which the disputed domain names were directed, and the absence of a disclaimer disclosing the relationship between the Parties (or the lack thereof). As such, the Panel is satisfied that by using the disputed domain names in such manner, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this circumstance shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Further, the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith is configured and reinforced with the inclusion of the disclaimer at the bottom of the websites “All product names, logos, brands, trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.”, and the omission of crucial information such as the Complainant’s ownership over the FORD trademark and the use of a mark identical to the Complainant’s registered FORD trademark, appears in the disputed domain names (and are, in fact, the most prominent elements in the disputed domain names) and at the top of the websites (being a location where users/relevant consumers usually expect to find the name of the online shop and/or the name of the provider of the Website).

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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 names <fordcreditguide.com> and <forddealerships.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Daniel Peña
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2020