As stated above, the Complainant requests that the Panel applies its discretion and allows this complaint to be filed against all six Respondents under a single complaint. The Respondents to this complaint are:
- <golasouthafrica.com> – Marcel Baum;
- <golanederland.com> – Vanessa Kortig;
- <golaschweiz.com> – Christin Luft;
- <golashoesnz.com> – Markus Adler;
- <gola-india.com> - Thorsten Koehler; and
- <golamexico.com> – Sebastian Maurer.
The Complainant submits that there are a number of commonalities between the underlying registration details as disclosed by the registrar and similarities in the websites to which the respective disputed domain names relate:
- The registration details of all six disputed domain names all follow a similar pattern, namely: i) a personal first name and last name; ii) an apparent street address in Germany, and iii) an email address comprising a combination of letters and numbers and “@163.com”;
- The disputed domain names all follow the same format i.e. the GOLA mark followed by a country name or indicator;
- They were all registered in August 2021 (three on the same day);
- They were registered by the same registrar; and
- Of the six domains, 3 are websites which are accessible in the UK. The content of those websites all mirrors each other substantially.
The Panel obtains guidance on this procedural issue from i) Article 3 (c) of the Policy, which stipulates that the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder, followed by ii) the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 4.11.2, which states:
“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including e-mail address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s).”
Applying these considerations to the instant case, the Panel determines that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain names are more likely subject to the common control. What is pertinent to the Panel’s conclusion is the fact that all six disputed domain names were registered in August 2021, three on the same day, by the same registrar. The Panel notes that the registration details of all six disputed domain names follow the same format, namely the GOLA mark followed by a country name. The content of the respective websites is essentially similar in that they offer the sale of GOLA branded footwear and bags. Additionally, the content and design of three of the disputed domain names all mirror each other substantially. The targeting of the Complainant’s well-known mark and similarity of the content of the websites reflect common conduct by the Respondent. The aforesaid are all factors which indicate that the disputed domain names are linked.
In view of the aforesaid considerations, the Panel finds that the consolidation of the multiple domain name disputes involving the six nominally distinct Respondents would be procedurally efficient and consistent with the aims of the Policy.
|