Source: https://www.alain-bensoussan.com/avocats/udrp-d2003-0392-28-08-2003-produits-berger-c-wellmark-supplies/2008/04/24/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:53:10+00:00

Document:
Marque LAMPE BERGER opposée à elampeberger.com. Transfert du nom de domaine « elampeberger.com » au profit de la requérante, la société Produits Berger.
The disputed domain name is (elampeberger.com). It is registered with Tucows, Inc., Ontario, Canada (the « Registrar »).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the « Center ») on May 22, 2003. The Center received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 4, 2003.
In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 20, 2003. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the « Policy »), 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 Complainant is also the registrant of several domain names containing the words « Lampe Berger », including amongst others (lampeberger.fr), (lampesberger.com), (lampes-berger.com) and (lampeberger.biz). Several of the domain names held by the Complainant and containing the words « Lampe Berger » have been transferred to it as a result of previous UDRP proceedings.
The Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. It alleges that the LAMPE BERGER trademarks are highly distinctive as they are completely fanciful, and points out that the domain name incorporates these trademarks in full. According to the Complainant, the letter « e » certainly represents the concept of « electronic » and is not distinctive. Further, the addition of an « ordinary descriptive » word does not detract from the trademark itself.
The Complainant alleges that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the fact that the Respondent did not reply to its cease and desist letter of October 23, 2002, is evidence that the Respondent does not deny the facts asserted by Produits Berger, and that it does not deny the conclusions which the Complainant asserts can be drawn by these facts. In addition, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the fact that it registered the domain name after Complainant’s adoption and first use of the trademark LAMPE BERGER. The Complainant stresses that its trademark is a famous and widely reputed mark, in which it has invested substantial sums of money. According to the Complainant, the Respondent knew or should have known of the trademark at the time it registered the domain name. The Complainant also considers that the fact that the domain name is still registered in the name of the Respondent is evidence of bad faith. Finally, the Complainant points out that there can be evidence of registration and use in bad faith even if the domain name is not in use, since it would be difficult, or even impossible, for the Respondent to use the domain name as the name of any business, product or service for which it would be commercially useful without violating Complainant’s rights.
The Complainant mentions that it has already succeeded in obtaining the transfer of several domain names incorporating the trademark LAMPE BERGER, including (lampe-berger.com).
The Respondent has filed a Response, in which it disputes the Complainant’s position.
The Respondent explains that it registered the domain name [sic] to uplift the image of its fellow distributors and create a « more corporate image » for Lampe Berger products. According to the Respondent, it uses the domain name to provide a « corporate email address » to all distributors, since the Complainant does not do so. The Respondent states that the domain name is strictly used for such email addresses and that no website is maintained. It further alleges that so far the service is provided to only 20 distributors and that it is not profiting from it. However, the Respondent points out that it estimates the distributors of Lampe Berger products to be more than 80’000 in Asia.
The Respondent indicates that it will be glad to transfer the domain name to the Complainant when it stops distributing Lampe Berger products. It also states that it is willing to negotiate with Produits Berger on immediately returning the domain name, « but one of the conditions is that they must provide all distributors with a company email address ».
As regards the first question, the Complainant has provided satisfactory evidence that it is the owner of several trademarks, including LAMPE BERGER trademarks registered in France, the USA, and several Asian countries, including Singapore. In particular, the Complainant is the owner of the trademark « LAMPE BERGER + device » registered on August 5, 1996, in Singapore in class 21 under Nr. T96/08143E. It is also the owner of the word mark LAMPE BERGER ASIA, registered in France in Class 38 under Nr. 00 3 007 236 (filing date February 14, 2000).
As to the second question, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s LAMPE BERGER trademarks. The only differences between the designations are the deletion of the space between « Lampe » and « Berger », the addition of the letter « e » at the beginning of the domain name, and the addition of the generic top level domain « .com ». It makes no doubt in the Panel’s opinion that these elements are not sufficient to distinguish the domain from the Complainant’s trademark.
First, prior panels consistently have held that domain names that contain obvious misspellings or close variants of a trademark owner’s mark are identical or confusingly similar to that mark (see, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd; Make-Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v. Telmex Management Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-1428; AltaVista Company v. Geoffrey Fairbairn, WIPO Case No. D2000-0849; Aurora Foods, Inc. v. David Paul Jaros, WIPO Case No. D2000-0274). In this case, the Panel finds that the deletion of the space between the words « Lampe » and « Berger » and the addition of the letter « e » cannot avoid a finding of confusing similarity. This is especially the case since (1) it is customary to delete spaces between words in domain names, and (2) the use of the prefix « e » has become a common descriptive term used to identify electronic commerce activity (Inter-IKEA Systems B.V v. Technology Education Center, WIPO Case No. D2000-0522; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Peter Yellowlees, WIPO Case No. D2002-0638).
Second, it has been consistently held that the addition of the generic top level domain « .com » is irrelevant to a Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) analysis (see, e.g., Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Buy This Domain aka Domains Best Domains, WIPO Case No. D2003-0058).
Third, although the trademarks owned by the Complainant are trademarks including a device, it appears from the evidence on record that the words « Lampe Berger » are clearly predominant in several of those trademarks (including the Singapore trademark cited above).
In any event, the Panel notes that, according to previous decisions, the mere fact to be an authorized reseller or distributor of trademarked products is not as such sufficient to give a Respondent rights on or legitimate interests to a domain name consisting of the Complainant’s trademark (see, e.g., Allen-Edmonds Shoe Corporation v. Takin’ Care of Business, WIPO Case No. D2002-0799). On the contrary, in determining whether a reseller or service agent of trademarked goods can use the trademark at issue in its domain names, previous panels have held that a respondent must at the minimum: (i) actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; (iii) accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; and (iv) not try to corner the market in all domain names (Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Matthias Gasser, Hanslmeier Fleischwarenfabrik, WIPO Case No. D2003-0474; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903).
Thus, even if the Respondent were an authorized dealer, its use of the Complainant’s trademark would not be legitimate, absent any evidence that the conditions mentioned above are met or that there exists an agreement between the parties.
According to the Respondent’s allegations, the only purported use for the domain name is to provide distributors with a « corporate » email address. However, the Panel considers, in the absence of any evidence that the Respondent is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark, that such use cannot be characterized as a fair use. In addition, the Respondent alleges that it is not profiting from its email service, since it has « so far » been provided to « only 20 distributors ». However, the Respondent also states that there are more than 15’000 distributors in Singapore alone and that it estimates the distributors in Asia to be more than 80’000. On this basis, the Panel considers that the Respondent did not make a likely showing that it uses the domain name without intent for commercial gain.
First, the record shows that the Respondent not only was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the domain names, but even purposely chose to register a domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. Indeed, as set out above, the Respondent stated that it registered the domain name to use it to offer email addresses to distributors of Lampe Berger products. When the Respondent has no rights on or legitimate interests to the domain name (as is the case in this matter – see above), registration of such a domain name with actual knowledge of an existing trademark is evidence of bad faith (see, e.g., UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Brenda Michelson, WIPO Case No. D2003-0369; BolognaFiere S.p.A. v. Bonopera Daniele, WIPO Case No. D2003-0295; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Paul J. Swider, WIPO Case No. D2002-0561; Amazon.com, Inc v. Sung Hee Cho, WIPO Case No. D2001-1276).
Second, the Respondent has alleged that it is using the domain name to provide email addresses to Lampe Berger distributors, since the Complainant does not itself provide this service. In the Panel’s opinion, it is not for the Respondent to decide how the Complainant’s trademark should be used or licensed. The use of the Complainant’s trademark in email addresses creates the impression that the « distributors »- as alleged by the Respondent – are related to the Complainant or authorized by the latter to use such email addresses. The Respondent creates this impression even though it knew that the Complainant chose not to provide a « corporate email address ». The Panel considers that the Respondent is attempting to create an association with the Complainant that, on the face of the record, does not exist. This is evidence of bad faith (Chanel, Inc. v. Buybeauty.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-1126).
This finding of bad faith is further supported by the fact that the Respondent stated in its Response that it was willing to negotiate with the Complainant on returning the domain name only if the latter provided all distributors with a company email address. This shows that the Respondent’s purpose in registering the domain name was to try and force the Complainant to allow the use of its trademark by the Respondent and third parties.
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, (elampeberger.com), be transferred to the Complainant.

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