Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0926.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:01:24+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Corporación Radio y Televisión Española, S.A., Madrid, Spain, represented by Elzaburu, Spain.
The Respondent is Pablo Palermo, San Isidro, Peru.
The disputed domain name <rtve.com> is registered with Backslap Domains, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Backslap Domains, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 19, 2008, the Registar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 Complainant on June 30, 2008, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 2, 2008. The Center verified that the amended 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”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 4, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 24, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on July 25, 2008.
The Center appointed Kiyoshi I. Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2008. 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 <rtve.com> was registered on November 11, 1999.
That it owns numerous trademark registrations for RTVE.
That Complainant's trademarks and the disputed domain name are identical or quasi-identical.
That other panels have issued numerous decisions holding that the incorporation of the top level domains “.com”, “.net”, or “.org” are irrelevant when comparing a trademark and domain name (and cites RAIMAT, S.A. v. Antonio Casals, WIPO Case No. D2000-0143).
That there is a lack of distinctiveness of the top level domains “.com”, “.net” or “.org” (and cites Microsoft Corporation v. Amit Mehrotra, WIPO Case No. D2000-0053; The Hearst Corporation, Hearst Holdings, Inc., King Features Syndicate, Inc., and Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. Samuel Plasencia Patino, WIPO Case No. D2002-0193).
That the registration of a domain name that coincides with another party's trademark entails an infringement of the trademark owner's exclusive rights.
That the infringement is greater if the mark that has been appropriated as a domain name is well-known, as in the case of RTVE.
That given the circumstances, Respondent must hold no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
“It is relatively difficult for any complainant to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. By and large, such information is known to and within the control of the respondent. Accordingly, the burden on a complainant in respect of this element must, by necessity, be relatively light. In any event, Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives respondents ample opportunity to rebut any evidence tendered by complainants”.
That paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the various ways in which respondents can prove that they hold rights or legitimate interests in their domain names.
That mere registration of a domain name does not establish rights in it (citing Potomac Mills Limited Partnership v. Gambit Capital Management, WIPO Case No. D2000-0062).
“The Complainant states that the Respondant is not commonly known by the <arubamarriot.com> domain name. According to the domain name's WHOIS information the Respondent is known as “MCM Tours, Inc.” See e.g. Compaigne de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission for the Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy 4(c)(ii) to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name prevail”).
“The Panel notes that Respondent was sent two cease and desist letters and was also sent a copy of this Complaint but has not taken opportunity to present any argument on his behalf. The Panel finds that the trademark RIVER BELLE is sufficiently distinctive on its merits for the Panel to need to consider the possibility of coincidence.
That a complete lack of rights or legitimate interests by Respondent clearly shows that the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.
That factual grounds of the Complaint demonstrate the bad faith in which Respondent acted by registering and using the conflicting domain name.
That the mere fact that the domain names have been registered in bad faith, without rights or legitimate interests implies use in bad faith. (and cites J. García Carrión, S.A. v. Mª José Catalán Frías, WIPO Case No. D2000-0239).
“This is actually what happened at the end of 2002, leading the Complainant to write to the Respondent to inform about its rights in the trademark and to invite the Respondent to explain the reasons for the registration of the disputed domain name.
When receiving such notice, good faith requires a response. Instead, the Respondent did nothing. Although it had actual knowledge of the Complainant´s rights in the corresponding trademark, it did not reply and did not bother transferring or canceling the disputed domain name.
That the bad faith of Respondent is likewise revealed in his attitude, which contrasts radically to the loyalty and care that must preside in the conduct of any business.
“The Complainant has been using the name SUPREME RULER for over twenty years. The Google searches by the Complainant and the Panel show that the term “Supreme Ruler” is very widely known on the Internet in connection with the Complainant´s Computer games. Therefore, despite the fact that it is composed of two common words and that the term itself could, in some instances, be viewed as descriptive, the Panel is satisfied that, particularly with regard to Internet users, the term has acquired a secondary meaning. The domain name uses the exact name of the Complainant´s computer game. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant´s rights are sufficient to satisfy the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy”.
Respondent did not file a Response or otherwise reply to Complainant's contentions.
In the administrative proceeding, Complainant must prove that each three of these elements are present.
As Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the allegations of the Complaint (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487; Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
Complainant has submitted evidence showing the existence of trademark registrations for RTVE and ENTE PÚBLICO RADIO TELEVISIÓN ESPAÑOLA (R.T.V.E.), together with evidence of promotional materials, sponsorships, productions, programs and advertisements regarding said trademarks. Most of these trademark registrations predate the date of registration of the domain name (see point 4, supra).
The disputed domain name <rtve.com> is identical to Complainant's trademark RTVE. The addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is immaterial under the Policy. To carry into effect the similarity analysis, a Panel must not take into account the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”, because such gTLD has no legal significance. See Ahmanson Land Company v. Vince Curtis, WIPO Case No. D2000-0859, (citing in turn Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. J. Bartell, WIPO Case No. D2000-0300; J.P. Morgan & Co., Incorporated and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Resource Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2000-0035; see also Pomellato S.p.A. v. Richard Tonetti, WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 and, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
Respondent has not been granted any authorization to register the disputed domain name (See Société Air France v. Bing G Glu, WIPO Case No. D2006-0834).
Respondent has not submitted evidence showing its preparations to use the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent does offer some products and services through the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Said offering of products and services cannot be considered bona fide or legitimate.
The record does not contain any evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known as <rtve.com >.
No evidence has been submitted to prove that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. In fact, Complainant has submitted evidence, which has not been rebutted by Respondent, showing that the disputed domain name has been set to resolve to a pay-per-click domain park, the initial page of which offers different products and services, under the following titles: “Apartments in Spain”, “Villa Holiday”, “Villas”, “Rent Apartment”, “Property”, “Holiday Apartment”, “Property for Sale”, “Holiday Rental”, “Accommodation”, “Private Villas”.
Respondent's conduct generates a risk of confusion regarding the existence of an apparent association, origin or sponsorship of Complainant, in connection to the domain name, website, or products and services of Respondent. This cannot be legitimate (See, mutatis mutandis, Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946).
The second requirement of the Policy has been met.
According to the record, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark RTVE. This conduct falls within the scope of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. NA, NAF Case No. FA154141 and Savin Corporation v. Cal Toner c/o Domain Manager, NAF Case No. 230934.
The evidence submitted by Complainant suggests that the choice of this domain name was not coincidental. The domain park to which the disputed domain name resolves, features services that are connected to Spain. This cannot constitute good faith under the Policy. See Recoletos Compañía Editorial, S.A. v. Recoletos.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-1765; RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. v. Freedomain E-Solutions LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0491; and, British Broadcasting Corporation v. Data Art Corporation / Stoneybrook, WIPO Case No. D2000-0683. See also, mutatis mutandis, Guerlain S.A. v. HI Investments, WIPO Case No. D2000-0494.
The third requirement of the Policy has been met.
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 <rtve.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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