юридическая фирма 'Интернет и Право'
Основные ссылки











Яндекс цитирования

Рассылка 'BugTraq: Закон есть закон'



Rambler's Top100



Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

 

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net

Case No. D2000-0226

 

1. The Parties

Complainant is Parfums Christian Dior S.A., 125 rue du Prйsident Wilson, 92593 Levallois-Perret Cedex, France. Respondents are Javier Garcia Quintas, Apartado de correos 5, Playa del Ingles Gran Canaria, 35100, Spain and Christiandior.net, Apartado de correos 5, Playa del Ingles Gran Canaria, 35100, Spain.

 

2. Domain Name and Registrar

The domain names at issue are "christiandior.com" and "christiandior.net"; hereinafter referred to as the "Domain Names". The registrar is Register.com.

 

3. Procedural History

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received the complaint on March 29, 2000, (hard copy and exhibits). The Center verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). Complainant made the required payment to the Center. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is April 3, 2000.

On March 31, 2000, the Center transmitted via email to Register.com a request for registrar verification in connection with this case. On April 3, 2000, Register.com transmitted via email to the Center, Register.com's Verification Response, confirming that the registrants are Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net.

Having verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the

Policy and the Rules, the Center transmitted on April 3, 2000, to

gjavier@teleline.es
info@christiandior.com
info@christiandior.net
postmaster@christiandior.com

and

postamster@christiandior.net

the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding. The Center advised that the response was due by April 23, 2000. On the same day, the Center transmitted via airmail copies of the foregoing documents to:

Javier Garcia Quintas
Apartado de correaos 5
Playa del Ingles Gran Canaria
35100 Spain

and to:

Christiandior.net
Apartado de correos 5
Playa del Ingles Gran Canaria
35100 Spain

On April 26, 2000, having received no Response from the Respondents, the Center issued to both the postal and email addresses of both parties a Notification of Respondent Default. No reply by Respondents to the Notification of Respondent Default was received.

On April 28, 2000, in view of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist the Center invited Mr. Geert Glas to serve as a panelist and transmitted to him the Request for Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and a Statement of Acceptance.

Having received on May 3, 2000, Mr. Geert Glas' Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and his Statement of Acceptance, the Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Mr. Geert Glas was formally appointed as the Sole Panelist. The Projected Decision Date was May 17, 2000. The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and Supplemental Rules.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file, the Administrative Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore the Administrative Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

4. Factual Background

The complaint is based upon the trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under No. 2,153,858 on April 28, 1998. Complainant has registered several other trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which include amongst others DIOR, DIORLIGHT and DIORIFIC.

Christiandior.com was registered on November 29, 1999, and christiandior.net was registered on December 16, 1999. It appears from Register.com's Verification Response that Javier Garcia Quintas is the registrant of "christiandior.com" and that Christiandior.net is the registrant of "christiandior.net". Since both registrants share the same address and the same administrative, technical and zone contact, it is more than likely that the true registrant of "christiandior.net" is also Javier Garcia Quintas. Therefore both Christiandior.net and Javier Garcia Quintas will be referred to collectively as the "Respondents".

There is no relation between Respondents and Complainant and Respondents are not licensees of Complainant, nor do they have otherwise obtained an authorization to use Complainant’s mark.

The Domain Names do not resolve to an active web site; both sites bear the same "under construction" sign on their website and have the same email address (info@christiandior.com).

 

5. Parties Contentions

Complainant

Complainant contends that Respondents have registered the Domain Names which are identical to Complainant's CHRISTIAN DIOR mark, that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Consequently, Complainant requires the transfer of the registrations of the Domain Names to the Complainant.

Respondent

Respondents have not contested the allegations of the Complaint and are in default.

 

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Administrative Panel as to the principles the Administrative Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Applied to this case, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,

(2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,

(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Identity

It is beyond dispute that the Domain Names are identical to Complainant's CHRISTIAN DIOR mark.

Complainant has for several decades successfully been using its CHRISTIAN DIOR mark primarily in the areas of fashion and cosmetics. It can be said that the CHRISTIAN DIOR mark is a well-known mark in the sense of art. 6bis of the Paris Convention.

In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical to the CHRISTIAN DIOR mark of Complainant.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondents to use its CHRISTIAN DIOR mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating this mark.

The Panel is somewhat troubled by the fact that the christiandior.net Domain Name was registered in the name of "Christiandior.net". However, in the absence of any further evidence of the existence of this entity, this fact does in itself not create a right or legitimate interest in this Domain Name christiandior.net. In this respect, the Panel cannot exclude that Respondents, by using the name Christiandior.net as registrant for the Domain Name christiandior.net, may have falsely tried to create the false impression that Respondents were permitted to use such name.

By not submitting a Response, Respondents have failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

The Administrative Panel therefore finds that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondents have not associated the Domain Names with a real online commercial or non-commercial presence. The Domain Names resolve to the same "under construction" website and have the same email address (info@christiandior.com).

The WHOIS record for Garcia Quintas shows a list of 15 names that end on Garcia Quintas with different first names but who have all the same telephone number (629184860). A majority of these names have also the same email address (gjavier@teleline.es). This clearly shows that Respondents have taken deliberate steps to hide their identity and the domain names registered by them.

Additional research by the Panel resulted in a list of more than 100 domain names registered by Garcia Quintas (under different first names, but all with the same address or email address).

In view of the above, it is fair to infer that Respondents real business is to acquire domain names and sell them for profit.

It is clear that the Domain Names can only refer to the Complainant. Moreover the Domain Names are so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products that its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith (Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondйe en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,Case No. D2000-0163).

In the absence of contrary evidence, the Panel finds that Respondents knew of or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark and services at the time Respondents registered the Domain Names given the widespread use and fame of the Complainant’s CHRISTIAN DIOR mark (Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network, Case No. D2000-0137).

Finally, Respondents by registering the Domain Names prevent Complainant from reflecting its CHRISTIAN DIOR mark in corresponding domain names.

In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds that Respondents have registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

7. Decision

In light of the foregoing, the Administrative Panel decides that the Domain Names registered by Respondents are identical to Complainant's CHRISTIAN DIOR mark, that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, and that Respondents' Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Administrative Panel requires that the registration of the Domain Names "christiandior.com" and "christiandior.net" be transferred to Complainant.

 


 

Geert Glas
Sole Panelist

Dated: May 17, 2000

 

Источник информации: http://www.internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2000/d2000-0226.html

 

Добавить эту страницу в закладки:

 


 

Произвольная ссылка:

Разработка сайта
ArtStyle Group

Уважаемый посетитель!

Вы, кажется, используете блокировщик рекламы.

Пожалуйста, отключите его для корректной работы сайта.