Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2010/d2010-0264.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:17:56+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is J. Macêdo S/A of Brazil, represented by Neumann, Salusse, Marangoni Advogados of Brazil.
The Respondent is Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The disputed domain name <donabenta.com> is registered with About Domain Dot Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2010. On February 22, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to About Domain Dot Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2010, About Domain Dot Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 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”).
The Center appointed Nicoletta Colombo as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2010. 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.
- DONA BENTA in the European Union No. EU 8266462 filed on 30.04.2009, and covering products and services in classes 29 and 30.
The Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names: <donabenta.com.br> registered on February 1, 1997 and <donabenta.am.br> registered on July 2, 2008.
The disputed domain name <donabenta.com> was registered in the name of the Respondent on August 28, 2008.
- the Respondent was also a respondent on several previous UDRP proceedings and all decisions issued were favorable to the Complainants.
The Complainant requests the Panel to transfer the disputed domain name to it.
The Complainant has several trademarks registrations for DONA BENTA all over the world, including domain names. Therefore it has been proved that the Complainant has rights in the DONA BENTA trademark.
There are several UDRP decisions stating that confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, is established when a domain name is identical to a complainant's mark.
The addition of the generic top level domain extension “.com” does not eliminate the confusion (see Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. Grande Media, WIPO Case No. D2007-0840; Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. Name Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2005-0457).
There is no doubt that the domain name <donabenta.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
The Panel finds that as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the factual assertions that are made and supported by the evidence submitted by the Complainant.
There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, or to apply for, or to use the disputed domain name incorporating said mark.
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and there is prima facie indication in the case file that there are no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, as per paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. Grande Media, WIPO Case No. D2007-0840; UPIB, Inc. v. Texas Internet, WIPO Case No. D2004-0073).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and under these circumstances, finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.
Based on the evidence presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As sufficient evidence of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name (which corresponds to a quite widely known trademark) most probably with knowledge of the Complainant's rights. Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's mark would have registered an identical domain name.
There is no information as to the business activity of the Respondent that would justify the registration and the use of the disputed domain name; nor is there evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name by the Respondent. Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intent to profit from the reputation of the well-known trademark of the Complainant, by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. This circumstance is confirmed by the fact that the disputed domain name is largely dedicated to the food industry, in particular to the flour, pasta and cake mixes segment which are the main products of the Complainant, and also directs Internet users to web sites of Complainant's competitors. Taken together with the fact that the Respondent has not filed any Response in this proceeding in support of any good faith registration or use, and in the absence of any rights or legitimate interests and of any contrary evidence from the Respondent, it is the opinion of this panel that the Respondent's registration of the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark was done in bad faith (see Accor v. Howell Edwin, WIPO Case No. D2005-0980; Ferrero S.p.A. v. Publinord S.r.l., WIPO Case No. D2002-0395; Banca Sella S.p.A. v. Mr. Paolo Parente, WIPO Case No. D2000-1157; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).
As a further confirmation of bad faith registration, the Respondent has given false information in terms of telephone and contact details, at the moment of the registration.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intent to benefit from the reputation of Complainant's well-known trademark. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third element of the Policy.
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 <donabenta.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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