Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0022
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:56:27+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. of Vevey, Switzerland, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.
The Respondent is Cengiz Simsek of Adana, Turkey.
The disputed domain names <nescafealtarica.com>, <nescafe-cappuccino.com>, <nescafecappuccino.com>, <nescafe-classic.com>, <nescafeclassic.com>, <nescafecollection.com>, <nescafe-gold.com>, <nescafegold.com>, <nestledamak.com>, <nestlepurelifewater.com>, <nestlepurelifewaters.com>, <xn--nescafetrkiye-3ob.com>, and <xn--nestleikolata-ngb.com> (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 5, 2011. On January 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On January 8, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 12, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 1, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2011.
The Center appointed Derek M. Minus as the sole panelist in this matter on February 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.
The Complainant is a Swiss limited liability company founded in 1866 by Henri Nestlé which today sells products and services all over the world in various industries, primarily the food industry, including coffee products, baby foods, breakfast cereals, chocolate and confectionery, beverages, bottled water, dairy products, ice cream, prepared foods, and food services. With over 283,000 employees, the Complainant is the world's largest food consumer products company marketing its products in over 200 countries. According to Fortune Magazine’s “Fortune Global 500”, an annual ranking of the world's 500 largest companies, the Complainant was in 2010, the 44th biggest company in the world.
According to Interbrand’s annual Best Global Brands ranking for 2010, the trademark NESTLÉ was worth USD 6,548 million in 2010, making it the 58th most valuable trademark in the world. The NESCAFÉ mark was initially launched in 1938 in connection with the Complainant’s instant coffee products and has become one of the Complainant’s leading brands all over the world. The NESCAFÉ mark is now used in connection with a range of coffee products marketed by the Complainant, including Classic, Decaff, Dolce Gusto, Gold, Cappucino, Blend 37, Fine Blend, Gold Blend, Alta Rica, Cap Colombie and Partners’ Blend.
- International Reg. No. 941054 of September 21, 2007, NESTLÉ PURE LIFE (word and device), in class 32.
The Complainant has also registered over 180 distinct domain names that incorporate the NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ trademarks in numerous gTLDs and ccTLDs. The Complainant operates the web sites “www.nescafe.com” and “www.nescafe.co.uk” as its primary web portals for the promotion of its NESCAFÉ brand and the web site “www.nestle.com.tr” is used to promote its activity in Turkey. The Complainant also operates the website “www.nestle-purelife.us” as its primary web portal for the promotion in the United States of its Pure Life brand of bottled water.
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
As the Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions and such inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the failure to submit a Response as the Panel considers applicable (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ both by extensive registration and reputation, to the extent that it can legitimately claim NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ to be well-known marks.
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has extensive rights as each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates either the Complainant’s NESTLÉ or NESCAFÉ trademark in its entirety. This is then followed by one of the Complainant’s brand names, either with or without a hyphen (e.g. “altarica”, “collection”, “cappuccino”, “classic”, “gold”, “damak”, and “purelifewater”) or the generic words “trkiye” (from the Turkish word “türkiye”, which means “Turkey” in English) and “ikolata” (from “çikolata”, which means “chocolate” in English) with the gTLD “.com” identifier at the end.
Whether a domain name that incorporates a Complainant’s trademark together with a prefix or suffix is confusingly similar to the trademark has been considered in numerous UDRP decisions and it has been consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662, concerning the domain name <wal-martsucks.com>.
The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks as neither the addition of generic words, the hyphen symbol, or the gTLD “.com”, nor the addition of all of them together, is sufficient to prevent confusion with the Complainant’s unique registered NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ trademarks.
The Respondent is not a licensee or authorized agent of the Complainant or in any way authorized to use the Complainant's NESTLÉ or NESCAFÉ trademark. As was stated in Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline, WIPO Case No. D2000-0134, “the mere registration, or earlier registration [of a domain name], does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Complainant advises that the Respondent currently holds most of the Disputed Domain Names passively. Mere non-use is insufficient to establish a legitimate interest in respect of a domain name (see Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Wreaks Communications Group, WIPO Case No. D2006-0483; Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI, WIPO Case No. D2000-1195; Netcentives Inc. v. B W Brody Company, WIPO Case No. D2000-0672).
“since the Respondent was informed of the Complainant’s claims in relation to the trademark and made no attempt to offer any explanation for his adoption of so similar a domain name for use in relation to services of the same description, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”.
Similarly in this case, the Respondent has failed to provide any explanation to his incorporation of the Complainant’s trademarks, NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ, used in the Disputed Domain Names.
There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. Rather the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s copyright material incorporated into the Respondent’s website precludes the assessment in this case of it making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use, of the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
Given that the Complainant has satisfactorily made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden is on the Respondent to establish its right or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case No. D2003-0174; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Sampo plc v. Tom Staver, WIPO Case No. D2006-1135; Audi AG v. Dr. Alireza Fahimipour, WIPO Case No. DIR2006-0003). The Respondent has not demonstrated or established any such right or legitimate interest.
The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances illustrated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances evidencing any rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied.
The Policy lists four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) that are deemed to indicate bad faith. These examples are expressly non-exclusive.
“[e]ven without evidence of the Complainant's registered rights, it is apparent that the Complainant's mark is so famous that, as such, a Panel could legitimately take the equivalent of 'judicial notice' of that fact. Judicial notice is a rule of evidence that allows a matter to be taken as proven, because it is so well-known that it cannot reasonably be contested.” See also Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0556.
It is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Names.
“it could never be a legitimate or fair use to select a domain name which is confusingly similar to another person’s trade or service mark, with a view to misleadingly attracting visitors to a website linked to that domain name.” The offer of a competitor’s product (water) for sale from the Respondent’s website is a clear example of “intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark”.
It appears that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s NESTLÉ and NESCAFÉ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is made out.
By a ruse the Complainant initiated contact with a, Harun Aksoy, at an email address listed on the only website which was displayed at one of the Disputed Domain Names. This was the same person who supplied a late informal response to the Center’s request for submissions. The ensuring communication between a “marketing company” apparently acting on the instructions of the Complainant and this person, evidenced an intention by Harun Aksoy to sell the Disputed Domain Names for what may have been valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to that Disputed Domain Name. However, the relationship between Harun Aksoy and the Respondent, Cengiz Simsek, was not sufficiently established for any positive finding of bad faith in relation to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy to be made.
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy provides that bad faith registration and use will be made out where 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.” InTelstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls, WIPO Case No. D2001-0046, it was held that “a ‘pattern of conduct’ as required in Paragraph 4.b.(ii) typically involves multiple domain names directed against multiple Complainants, but may involve multiple domain names directed against a single Complainant (see Smoky Mountain Knife Works v. Deon Carpenter, eResolution Case Nos. AF-230ab; Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing Co., G + J McCall’s LLC, Rosie O’Donnell and Lucky Charms Entertainment, Inc. v. Savior Baby, WIPO Case No. D2000-1741)”. In this case, the registration by the Respondent of thirteen Disputed Domain Names that utilise the Complainant’s NESTLÉ or NESCAFÉ trademarks involves a pattern of conduct directed against the Complainant, which prevents it from reflecting its trademark in corresponding domain names. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy is made out.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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