Complainant has been a manufacturer of the iconic and world-famous \"Porsche\" sports cars for more than 75 years, using “Porsche” as the prominent and distinctive part of its company name\/trade name.<\/p>\n
Porsche sports cars and further products\/services (e.g. car parts, accessories, repair services etc.) are distributed\/offered worldwide. <\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks worldwide consisting of or incorporating the word “Porsche”. The trademarks and company name\/trade name “Porsche” are well-known and enjoy a reputation of highest quality and excellence. “Porsche” is protected by national and international trademark registrations worldwide. This includes, inter alia, the European Union and Switzerland. <\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns, inter alia, the domain name porsche.com (registered 1996) and operates the website www.porsche.com under this domain name. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is not in use. It does not resolve to an active website. The domain name is only being \"parked\".<\/p>\n
The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to register or use the PORSCHE mark and has no business or other relationship with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
On May 8, 2026, the Respondent contacted the Complainant and its representatives regarding the disputed domain name and offered to transfer or sell it to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
In a subsequent communication, the Respondent informed the Complainant that he also owned the domain <porscheflachbau.ch> and offered that domain name to the Complainant. That domain name was registered on May 10, 2026 and likewise did not resolve to an active website.<\/p>\n
In the Response, the Respondent stated that he was also associated with the domain 911turbo.ch, which redirects to a subdomain of <beier-immo.ch>.<\/p>\n
The Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name and the domain <porscheflachbau.ch> in return for EUR 600, which the Respondent characterises as reimbursement of documented registration costs. No invoices, registrar receipts or other documentation substantiating these alleged costs were submitted with the Response.<\/p>\n
The Respondent submitted a Response, contending that he had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it had neither been registered nor used in bad faith. The Complainant subsequently submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing addressing new allegations raised in the Response, including the Respondent’s claimed status as a Porsche enthusiast, his alleged operation of the website at 911turbo.ch, and his request for reimbursement of alleged registration costs. Exercising its discretion under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, the Panel admitted and considered both submissions in the interests of procedural fairness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its PORSCHE mark.<\/p>\n
It submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because:<\/p>\n
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It relies particularly on the fame of the PORSCHE mark, the Respondent’s admitted knowledge of the Complainant, his registration of several domain names incorporating the Complainant’s marks, and his offers to transfer the domain names against payment.<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims to be a longstanding Porsche enthusiast and customer who has owned multiple Porsche vehicles, including a Porsche 911 Turbo. The Respondent operates also the website 911turbo.ch, which reflects in his view his genuine personal interest in the Porsche brand.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered as part of the Respondent's legitimate interest in the .ing TLD as a Porsche owner and enthusiast — not with any intent to profit from the trademark or cause confusion.<\/p>\n
On May 8, 2026, prior to receiving any cease-and-desist letter from the Complainant, the Respondent proactively contacted Porsche AG and the Complainant's representatives at Unit4IP to propose a voluntary transfer of the domain name. This demonstrates in the view of Respondent that the Respondent acted in good faith from the outset. The Respondent States that the disputed domain name has never been deployed, developed, or used in connection with any commercial activity. No website, content, advertising, or service has ever been associated with the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never attempted to impersonate Porsche AG, divert customers, or tarnish the trademark. The disputed domain name was passively held pending an amicable resolution. The Respondent has consistently offered to transfer the disputed domain name voluntarily at a price reflecting documented registration costs only, demonstrating good faith throughout the proceedings.<\/p>\n
Under the UDRP Policy, bad faith requires in the view of Respondent evidence of intent to profit illegitimately, disrupt business, or deceive consumers. None of these elements are present here:<\/p>\n
The Respondent's proactive outreach to Porsche AG prior to any legal action is inconsistent with bad faith registration.<\/p>\n
The Respondent respectfully requests that the Panel deny the Complaint and find that the disputed domain name should remain registered to the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Alternatively, the Respondent remains willing to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in exchange for reimbursement of documented registration costs (EUR 600 for both porsche.ing and porscheflachbau.ch), as proposed prior to these proceedings.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Complainant submits that the Response should be disregarded because it was filed after the applicable deadline.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 10 of the Rules gives the Panel broad authority to conduct the proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate, subject to the requirements that the Parties be treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding take place with due expedition. Paragraph 10(d) further authorises the Panel to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.<\/p>\n
In this proceeding, it does not matter, if the Response was filed late, the Panel considers that admitting it will not cause material delay or unfair prejudice to the Complainant. The Complainant has had an opportunity to address the Response through its supplemental filing.<\/p>\n
The Panel therefore admits the Response. <\/p>\n
Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged. Under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, however, a Panel may admit a supplemental filing where it addresses material matters that could not reasonably have been anticipated in the original pleading.<\/p>\n
The Respondent relied for the first time in the Response on his alleged status as a Porsche owner and enthusiast, his alleged operation of a fan website through 911turbo.ch, and his contention that the requested EUR 600 represented only documented registration costs. Those matters were not fully apparent from the information available to the Complainant when the Complaint was filed.<\/p>\n
The supplemental filing directly addresses those allegations. In the interests of procedural equality, the Panel therefore admits the supplemental filing to the extent that it responds to new material contained in the Response.<\/p>\n
The Panel does not, however, rely on speculative allegations that the Respondent is a “professional cybersquatter” or probably owns additional trademark-abusive domain names for which no evidence has been submitted.<\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under the Policy, the Rules and the CAC Supplemental Rules have been met.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks worldwide consisting of or incorporating the word “Porsche”. The trademarks and company name\/trade name “Porsche” are well-known and enjoy a reputation of the highest quality and excellence. “Porsche” is protected by national and international trademark registrations worldwide. This includes, inter alia, the European Union and Switzerland. Some of these trademarks owned by the Complainant are listed below, by way of example:<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns, inter alia, the domain name porsche.com (registered 1996) and operates the website www.porsche.com under this domain with special sections devoted to national or regional audiences all over the world, including Switzerland. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "porsche.ing": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }