The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s protected brand name “LACPRODAN” (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The Panel also finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
It is possible that resellers, distributors, or service providers use domain names like the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services (within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy), and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. According to the well-established “Oki Data test” (cf. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, <okidataparts.com>; please see section 2.8 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 for more details), however, the following cumulative requirements must be met in such cases:
(i) the Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
(ii) the Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;
(iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and
(iv) the Respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark.
The Respondent does not meet requirement (iii) and therefore fails the Oki Data test.
Given the Respondent’s prominent use of the Complainant’s “ARLA“ name and logo on the website it is evident that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Panel infers that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of this website and the Respondent’s services offered on it (within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
|