UDRP : OMPI D2002-0610 11 12 2002 PRODUITS BERGER C KIKAKUYA INC
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Marque LAMPE BERGER opposée à lampe-berger.com. Transfert du nom de domaine « lampe-berger.com » au profit de la réquérante, la société Produits Berger. ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Produits Berger v. Kikakuya Inc. Case No. D2002-0610 1. The Parties Complainant is Produits Berger, represented by Novagraaf France, 122 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 92593 Levallois Perret, France, hereinafter the « Complainant ». Respondent is Kikakuya Inc., Ryoko Nagashima, 3951 S. Plaza Dr, Suite 250, Santa Ana, CA 92704, United States of America, hereinafter the « Respondent ». 2. Domain Name and Registrar The domain name in dispute is (lampe-berger.com). The registrar for the disputed domain name is Register.com, 575 Eight Avenue, 11th floor, New York, NY 10018, United States of America. 3. Procedural History The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows: (a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a Complaint via e-mail, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the « Center ») on July 1, 2002, and in hard copy on July 12, 2002. On July 2, 2002, the Center sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint to the Complainant. (b) On July 2, 2002, the Center also transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, with the Registrar’s Response received by the Center the same day, confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through Register.com, 575 Eight Avenue, 11th floor, New York, NY 10018, United States of America. (c) On July 15, 2002, the Center had satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (« the Policy »), the Rules for the Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (« the Rules »), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (« the Supplemental Rules »), and transmitted a Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent. (d) In an e-mail sent to the Center on July 23, 2002, Respondent agreed to transfer to Complainant the domain name at issue, after which submitted a request for suspension of the proceedings on July 31, 2002. The Center issued a Notification of Suspension the same day. (e) On October 9, 2002, Complainant submitted a request for reinstitution of the proceedings, and the Center sent a notification of reinstitution of the proceedings to the parties the same day. (f) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent within the deadline for the submission of Response. Accordingly, the Center issued a Notification of Respondent Default on October 30, 2002. (g) In view of the Complainant’s designation of a three-member Administrative Panel, the Center invited Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as presiding Panelist, and Mr. Alain Bensoussan and Ms. Angela Fox as Panelists. Having received the Panelists’ Statements of Acceptance and Declarations of Impartiality and Independence, the Center formally appointed Mr. Peter Nitter, Mr. Alain Bensoussan and Ms. Angela Fox as members of the Administrative Panel. On November 13, 2002, the Center transmitted the case file to the Administrative Panel and notified the parties of the appointed Panel. (h) The Panelists find that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Administrative Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English. 4. Factual Background After considering the Complainant’s assertions, supported by the documents enclosed as annexes to the Complaint, and undisputed by Respondent because of its default, the Panel finds the following: Complainant is the owner of the mark LAMPE BERGER which is registered extensively as a trademark throughout the world. The mark is also registered in combination with other words in a number of countries. In addition, the Complainant owns a global portfolio of domain names comprising the words ‘lampe berger’ or variations thereof. The Respondent has registered the domain name (lampe-berger.com). 5. Parties’ Contentions 5.1 Complainant The Complainant asserts that: The domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. The spelling of Complainant’s trade marks and the dominant part of the domain name at issue are identical and therefore likely to confuse consumers who may reasonably assume that the domain name is in some way associated with Complainant. According to previous decisions under the UDRP, the addition of « .com » is incidental and does not serve to significantly distinguish otherwise identical domain names and trade marks. The domain name at issue wholly incorporates a registered trademark owned by Complainant, and this is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. Complainant is the sole owner of the trademarks LAMPE BERGER, LAMPES BERGER and LA LAMPE BERGER in France, Asia and the United States, as well as many other countries around the world. The domain name at issue does not correspond to Respondent’s corporate name, and to the knowledge of Complainant, neither to any trademarks owned by Respondent. Nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name at issue, or the words therein. Complainant has in no way licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or a corresponding domain name. The domain name was and is registered and used in bad faith. Complainant has in two instances sent cease and desist letters to the proprietor of the domain name at issue to inform about its rights, upon which the domain name has been transferred to a new proprietor. Complainant has not received an answer from any of the three proprietors of the disputed domain name. Complainant has used its trademarks continuously and extensively in international commerce in connection with perfume diffusers and related products in America and throughout the world over more than one century. Complainant has also invested substantial sums of money in developing and marketing its goods. Complainant’s trademarks have thus become famous and