A. Complainant
1. Identity or confusing similarity
With reference to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “sparco”. The Complainant refers on prior WIPO decisions Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention (WIPO Case No. D2001-0505) and GA Modefine S.A. v. Mark O´Flynn (WIPO Case No. D2000-1424) when stating, that it is well established, that the mere addition of generic words to a trademark in domain names is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
The addition of the generic term “wheels” in the case of the disputed domain name is furthermore problematic, as it refers to a business sector the Complainant is active in and thus is not negating but actually enhancing the confusing similarity between the trademark “sparco” and the disputed domain name.
The top level “.com” is merely instrumental to the use in Internet (e.g. FORUM case FA0008000095491, October 3, 2000) and not able to affect the confusing similarity between the trademark “sparco” and the disputed domain name.
2. No rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent
The Complainant states the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant. Neither a license nor any authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant`s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
The Complainant assures that he knows of no evidence leading to Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name – which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s domain name “sparco-wheels.com” – with the aim to prevent him to register it and in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant`s trademarks.
A use of the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be detected. In fact the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect users to websites advertising Complainant`s competitor SMW Wheels` products. The Respondent has also registered the domain name smwwheels.com, which leads the Complainant to the conclusion, that the Respondent is generating click-through revenues. Furthermore, the Respondent is actively seeking collaborations with other businesses for revenue.
In no occasion, the Respondent has installed a disclaimer, that there is no relationship between him and the redirected websites and the Complainant and its trademarks.
3. Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant states that he has used the trademark “sparco” extensively and exclusively since 1977 and that the trademark has gained and now enjoys worldwide reputation through long established and widespread use in many countries of the world, for example also in Latvia, where the Respondent resides. Therefore, the Complainant concludes, that Respondent must have been aware of the trademarks existence (see Ferrari S.p.A. v. Allen Ginsberg, WIPO Case No. D2002-0033).
This is underlined by the fact, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, which is virtually identical to Complainant’s domain name “sparco-weels.com”. Furthermore, the Respondent owns the domain names “smw.com” and “smwwheels.com” that redirect to websites of a wheels manufacturer. Thus, it can be assumed that the Respondent is experienced in the relevant market of wheels manufacturers and therefore knows about the existence and importance of the Complainant and its trademark.
The registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the Complainant`s trademark is an evidence of bad faith (see inter alia Belstaff S.R.L. v jiangzheng ying, Case No. D2012-0793).
The Respondent also shows a habit of registering domain names containing the generic word “wheels” or “rims” with well-known trademarks mainly related to the automotive sector, which are then used to redirect the users to websites dedicated to promote SMW Wheels.
In conclusion, the Complainant conducts that the Respondent is acting in bad faith according to paragraph 4 (b) (iii) and (iv) of the UDRP Rules.
B. Respondent
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|