WIPO

 

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Deutsche Bank AG v. E-business International.

Case No. D2000-0504

 

1. The Parties

Complainant

Deutsche Bank AG Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany represented by Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsh, Rechtanwaelte of Maybachstr.6, D-70469 Stuttgart, Germany.

Respondent

E Business International, 2301 Collins Ave #A-603 Miami Beach, FL 33139, USA.

 

2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)

Domain Name

"deutsche-bankerstrust.com"

Registrar

Network Solutions Inc.

 

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed on May 26, 2000. WIPO verified that the Complaint satisfies the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly made. The panelist is satisfied this is the case.

The Complaint was properly notified in accordance with Rules, paragraph 2(a) and a No Response was filed by the Respondent. The Respondent is in default.

The administrative panel was properly constituted. The undersigned panelist submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

No further submissions were received by WIPO or the Panel as a consequence of which the date scheduled for the issuance of the Panelís decision was August 7, 2000.

 

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner of registered trade marks for DEUTSCHE BANK in Germany and the USA.

 

5. Partiesí Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that:

1. It is Germanyís largest bank and one of the worldís leading banking institutions. It was founded in 1870 in Berlin. The complainant uses the domain names "deutsche-bank.com", "deutschebank.com", "deutsche-bank.de" and "deutschebank.de". Due to decades of use the mark Deutsche Bank has become well known;

2. It recently acquired the American company and its affiliate companies. The homepage of Bankerstrust is found at bankerstrust.com.

3. The domain name is not in total but is in large part identical to the Complainantís famous name and trade mark or is at least confusingly similar. The word "Trust" prevents no confusion as it is used by the Complainantís affiliate.

4. The Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the Domain Name. It is not a licensee of the Complainant and has not received any permission or consent to use the trade mark Deutsche Bank. The Respondentís web page simply states "under contruction" and has not been used;

5. The domain name has been used and registered in bad faith. The address details were not correct in the Who is Database. The Respondent disclosed an e-mail address and fax number over the telephone when the Complainant offered to buy the domain name. In fact the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter instead and has received no response.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default.

 

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

1. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

3. The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or confusing similarity.

Given the circumstances the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainantís DEUTSCHE BANK mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent.

The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

C. Bad Faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Rules sets out four non exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including "the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondentís documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name".

In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, there appears to be no explanation of the facts other than that the Respondent registered the Complainantís trade mark as a domain name with an intent to use the domain name to demand unwarranted profit in bad faith and that the Respondent has so used the Domain Name in question. The Respondent also appears to have sought to keep his contact details secret.

 

7. Decision

In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant ís trademark and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name which was registered and used in bad faith.

Accordingly, in the light of the above, the panelist requires that the registration of the Domain Name DEUTSCHE-BANKERSTRUST.COM be transferred to the Complainant.

 


 

Dawn Osborne
Presiding Panelist

Dated: August 1, 2000