Source: https://www.legi-internet.ro/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-ompi/castrolro-castrol-limited-v-nicolae-ganea.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:59:18+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Castrol Limited of Wiltshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by BP Group Trade Marks, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Nicolae Ganea of Malmoe of Sweden.
The disputed domain name <castrol.ro> is registered with RNC.ro.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the-Centerââ‚¬Â) on January 10, 2011. On January 11, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to RNC.ro a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 2011, RNC.ro transmitted by email to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 18, 2011 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 18, 2011.
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 January 25, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 14, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s default on February 18, 2011.
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 2011. 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.
As the Complaint had been submitted in English, on January 10, 2010, the Center forwarded a notice to the parties stating that the Complainant should (a) provide evidence of an agreement between the parties that proceedings be in English; (b) translate the Complaint into Romanian; or (c) submit a request that English be the language of the proceedings. On January 18, 2011 the Complainant filed a request that the language of the proceedings be English.
Although properly notified, at the contact details provided by the registrar, in both languages on the commencement of the proceedings, the Respondent chose not to object the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s request that English be the language of the proceedings and not to participate in the proceedings.
- The Respondent was party to other cases solved under the Policy (e.g. Skandia Insurance Company Ltd v. Nicoleae Ganea, WIPO Case No. DRO2008-0009; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. Ganea Nicolae, WIPO Case No. DRO2002-0001), where the language of the proceedings was English.
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Castrol Limited, a company part of the Castrol group of companies which has been selling lubricants under the Castrol brand for over 100 years and is one of the worldââ‚¬â„¢s leading manufacturers of lubricants and related products to the automotive, industrial, marine and energy markets around the world.
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is Nicolae Ganea and the disputed domain name was registered on January 1, 1996.
The Complainant contends that it owns numerous trade mark registrations for the trademark CASTROL worldwide. These include the Romanian trade registration no. 13016 and 1507. CASTROL products are widely available in Romania and the public are likely to be aware of the CASTROL trade mark both through contact with CASTROL and the advertising of the brand. As a result of the use and promotion of the CASTROL trademark in Romania the trademark has become well known in Romania. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s trade mark CASTROL.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not commonly known by the name CASTROL, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Also, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it is implausible that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s trademark CASTROL when he registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not used or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant also argues that the effect of the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s registration of the disputed domain name was to prevent the Complainant reflecting its CASTROL trademark in a corresponding domain name and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct, registering domain names corresponding to well-known trademarks. Also, the Respondent failed to respond to the request of the Complainant to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name.
Here, the Complainant has proved it has rights in the Romanian trademark No. 013016 for the mark CASTROL from December 1, 1981, in the Romanian trademark No. 001507 from April 6, 1988, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
Here, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s prior trademark CASTROL. It is well accepted that a country-code top-level domain, is to be ignored when assessing identity or confusing similarity of a trademark and a domain name (See, e.g. VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. Ganea Nicolae, WIPO Case No. DRO2002-0001; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. SC Agis International Sport S.R.L., WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0001; Auchan v. Web4comm Srl Romania, WIPO Case No. DRO2005-0001).
In the present case the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. (See, e.g., Barbara Brennan Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2008-0351; Sanford Winery Company v. Matt Geiser, WIPO Case No. D2008-0210). The Complainant alleges that the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s only reason in registering and using the disputed domain name is to prevent the Complainant to reflect its CASTROL trademark in a corresponding domain name.
In the Panelââ‚¬â„¢s view, any use of the disputed domain name would likely lead the public to the conclusion that it, and its connecting websites, is associated with the Complainant.
Also, the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent for more than 15 years since its registration together with the circumstances of the case represent, in the opinion of the Panel, bad faith registration and use (see also Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. SC Agis International Sport S.R.L., WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0001; Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0055).
The Respondent was found engaged in cybersquatting in other WIPO cases. E.g. See Skandia Insurance Company Ltd v. Nicoleae Ganea, WIPO Case No. DRO2008-0009; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. Ganea Nicolae, WIPO Case No. DRO2002-0001). This is UDRP indicative of the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s cybersquatting, and it is widely accepted that the Policy, applicable to this case has specifically been designed to resolve abusive registration of trademarks as domain names (see SociíƒÂ©tíƒÂ© BIC v. LaPorte Holdings, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0342). The Respondent has been involved in numerous such attempts and consequently condemned by various-panels, which in this Panelââ‚¬â„¢s view amount to the Respondent being engaged in a pattern of conduct sanctioned by paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy and with that the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out the third element of the Policy (paragraph 4(a)(iii). See also NBTY, Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2005-0835.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <castrol.ro> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.