Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1802
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:10:11+00:00

Document:
The Complainants are "Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH of Gräfelfing, Germany, and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH of Seeshaupt, Germany, represented by Beetz & Partner, Germany.
The Respondent is li yong of Jiangxi, China.
The disputed domain name <tanidrmartens.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 7, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 2012, 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. On September 11, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On September 11, 2012, the Complainant filed submissions requesting that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 19, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 9, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 12, 2012.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 2012. 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety, together with the non-distinctive descriptive word “tani”, which refers to a group of languages spoken in certain countries in Asia.
The disputed domain name is being used in respect of an unauthorised parking website which contains sponsored links to third party websites, including websites which offer for sale footwear, including the Complainant’s footwear (the “Website”).
(2) As the Complaint and its Annexes have been filed in English, it would make sense for practical and legal reasons to conduct the proceeding in English.
As at the date of this Decision, however, the Website to which the disputed domain name is resolved is an English language website featuring English language sponsored links and advertisements. Absent any submissions to the contrary from the Respondent, it therefore appears the Respondent is proficient in the English language (Expoconsult B.V. trading as CMP Information v. Roc Guan, WIPO Case No. D2008-1600; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to a disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the respective mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253); furthermore, mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does generally not exclude the likelihood of confusion (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).
In the present case, the disputed domain name contains the Trade Mark in its entirety2. The Panel concludes that the addition of the word “tani”, the name of a language spoken by approximately 600,000 people in certain countries in Asia, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by over 60 years. The Panel finds on the record that there is a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name is being used in respect of the Website, which has not been authorised by the Complainant, provides sponsored links to third party websites, and also features third party advertisements.
The evidence shows the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and set up the Website in order to capitalise on the repute of the Trade Mark and gain revenue through attracting consumers to the Website, by providing sponsored links to third party websites offering various products and services.
There has been no evidence provided to support the Complainant’s assertions that the Website contains sponsored links to third party websites which offer for sale footwear, including the Complainant’s footwear. Furthermore, as at the date of this Decision, there do not appear to be any such links on the Website. However, even absent such evidence, in all the circumstances of this proceeding, and in particular given the repute of the Trade Mark, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel would further note that the failure of the Respondent to file any Response is, in all the circumstances, a further indicator of bad faith.
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 name <tanidrmartens.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
2 The disputed domain name does not contain the full stop that is included in the Trade Mark. It is, however, trite that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, punctuation marks such as full stops are to be disregarded in determining the question of confusing similarity.

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