FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
PELCO, active in the Internet under www.pelco.com is an American-based security and surveillance technologies company, founded in 1957. PELCO was purchased by its current parent company, Schneider Electric, in 2007 and was incorporated into Schneider Electric's Building Automation business unit. PELCO products are globally distributed and frequently found in airports, malls, office buildings, factories, and on college campus. The Complainant owns several trademarks including the distinctive wording PELCO.
The Complainant is also the owner of several commercial names all around the world since decades, and is also the owner of internet domain names, including these distinctive wording PELCO. The disputed domain name < pelco-online.com > has been registered on September 13, 2013. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name < pelco-online.com > is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded goods PELCO ®.
In detail:
- The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and widely known trademark PELCO ® in its entirety.
But the word “online”, in the Internet context, is devoid of any distinctive character and is not sufficient to render the disputed domain name different from the Complainant’s trademark. If anything, it enhances the association with the Complainant’s goods by creating an impression that the Complainant’s goods can be purchased from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
Indeed, the wording PELCO® is only known in relation to the Complainant. It has no meaning whatsoever in English or in any other language. A Google search on the wording PELCO® displays several results, related to the Complainant.
- According to the WIPO case no. D2003-0455, “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.”, a Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.
In the present case, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way to his business.
The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
By using of the website related with the disputed domain name, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion by pretending to be the Complainant. Indeed, the website is a phishing page of the Complainant’s website www.pelco.com. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
- It is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark when registering the disputed domain name, as his website reproduces identically the Complainant’s one. That increases considerably any risk of phishing.
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic.
See for instance “Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc”, WIPO Case no. D2004- 0673.
On this basis, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|