WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Red Bull GmbH v. "." [sic]
Case No. D2010-1430
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Red Bull GmbH of Fuschl am See, Austria, represented by Drzewiecki, Tomaszek & Wspólnicy from Warsaw, Poland.
The Respondent is" ." [sic] of California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <redbulldrinks.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”)
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 25, 2010. On August 25, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 26, 2010, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, providing the contact details; and, that the Domain Name under dispute <redbulldrinks.com> has been placed on lock to prevent any transfers or changes to the registration information during the proceedings. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 2, 2010.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
The undersigned Panel has independently determined and agrees with the Center’s assessment that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 3, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 23, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 24, 2010.
The Center appointed Pedro W. Buchanan Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
This Panel further considers that the Complaint was properly notified to the registered domain name holder, as provided for in paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.
The Panel has not received any further requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information, statements or documents from the Parties, nor the need as an exceptional matter, to hold any in person hearings as necessary for deciding the Complaint, as provided for in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Rules. Therefore, the Panel has decided to proceed under the customary expedited nature contemplated for this type of domain name dispute proceedings.
The language of this proceeding is English, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.
4. Factual Background
According to the information provided by the Complainant, and due to the fact that the same was not disputed by the Respondent, the following facts and circumstances are recognized within this proceeding:
The Complainant is the largest worldwide producer of energy drinks. It is the producer of the famous Red Bull energy drink, which was first sold in Austria in 1987 and internationally since 1992. Currently, the RED BULL energy drink is sold in 157 countries all over the world and the Complainant has sold over 3.8 billion units in 2009.
Since its launch in 1987, the Complainant’s marketplace penetration was focused on TV, cinema and radio. In 1987, the Complainant invested over EURO 577,000 and already in 2009, this number has grown to over EURO 244.7 million worldwide. Based on these figures, the brand has become the unchallenged market leader in all its markets.
Additionally, the Complainant has promoted the RED BULL trademark as well as the device of two fighting bulls by very substantial international advertising. Much of this advertising by its nature is global or regional.
Furthermore, the Complainant organizes the RED BULL X-Fighters event and the RED BULL Air Race World Championship which both attract thousands of spectators at each event. The RED BULL Air Race World Championship is an international series of events which takes place in up to 12 large cities around the world during the course of one year and which is now televised both live and in extended highlight programmes on 87 TV channels around the world (news reports are televised on most major TV channels). The event requires 15 airplane pilots to navigate through an aerial course outlined by several air filled gates, racing for the best time whilst performing a number of flying manoeuvres. From a small event in 2003 with 250,000 spectators in Zeltweg, Austria, the RED BULL Air Race World Championship has grown to become a huge event, for example with over 2 million spectators in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2007 and over 1 million spectators in Detroit, United States, in 2008. The IFM Management Report which focuses on The RED BULL Air Race World Championship 2009 shows that the ad equivalent value of the event in 2009 was over EURO 5.3 million (TV exposure tracking the 10 biggest markets). This research also confirms that in 2009 the worldwide TV audience exceeded 15.7 million (see also “www.redbullairrace.com”).
The Complainant also organizes the RED BULL Flugtag (“Flight Day”) event during which competitors attempt to fly in homemade flying machines. The event was first held in Vienna, Austria, in September 1992 and attracted around 25,000 spectators. First held in 1998 in Berlin, the RED BULL Music Academy (workshops on music history, technology and business) was established in Dublin, New York, London, Sao Paulo, Cape Town, Rome and Seattle, increasing the international mix of students to 32 countries.
Another essential part of the Complainant’s marketing activities is sponsorship of sports events. In particular, the Complainant has been extensively involved in Formula One racing. In 1995 the Complainant began its participation in Formula One, sponsoring the Red Bull Sauber Petronas team which it co-owned until 2001. In January 2005, Red Bull took over the former Jaguar team and re-named it Red Bull Racing. In addition, the Complainant has been sponsoring a large number of other sports events around the world which attract a large public audience.
Since June 2005 the Complainant agreed to take on the role of the football club FC Red Bull Salzburg’s main sponsor, and in 2006 the Complainant became the main sponsor of New York’s New Jersey’s Major League Soccer team, re-naming it Red Bull New York.
This involvement of the Complainant in sports and other events has contributed to make the mark RED BULL well-known all over the world.
Therefore, through sales activities, television broadcasts, internet activities and events sponsored by the Complainant, the Red Bull energy drink and the trademark RED BULL have become well-known in many countries and famous in Austria. That reputation is confirmed by the statistics of studies conducted in 2003 in Germany and Austria, where 83.7% and 90% of the general public spontaneously associated the mark with the product Red Bull energy drink.
Apart from the media, the Complainant also promotes the RED BULL energy drink in other marketing materials such as sales folders, consumer information leaflets, retail displays, crowners, flyers, packaging material, sampling cars, clothes and so on.
These facts are evidenced by an affidavit of the General Counsel of the Complainant, provided as Annex E with enclosures to the Complaint. Further evidence of the activities of the Complainant can also be found on the Complainant’s main website at “www.redbull.com”.
The Complainant is the registrant of a large number of domain names containing the RED BULL mark, both under generic and country-code top level domains.
The Complainant’s main website “www.redbull.com” contains information on the RED BULL energy drink, sport activities, video records of sport events sponsored by Red Bull GmbH and links to other RED BULL websites, all of which regard marketing activities in relation to the famous trademark RED BULL. In 2009, the RED BULL website (“www.redbull.com”) received approximately 271 million page views. It includes Red Bull’s local country and events websites. One single page view causes in average 8 hits on RED BULL websites.
The Domain Name incorporates the famous RED BULL mark in its entirety. The Domain Name was registered and is being used for running the private business of the Respondent and gaining profits from misleading Internet users searching the official website of the Complainant. The website <redbulldrinks.com> is a “jump page”, by providing this website the Internet users are directed to another site “www.xsenergystore.com”. Under the website “www.xsenergystore.com” the Respondent displays an ample range of products available to buy. Screen-prints of the website under the Domain Name were provided as Annex F to the Complaint.
Moreover, under this website there is possibility to buy products bearing the Complainant’s trademarks without any authorization of the Complainant – e.g., clothes, energy drinks and gadgets. The screen prints of the results of the search regarding the item “redbull” were provided as annex F1 to the Complaint.
The Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor – the Complainant – by diverting consumers away from the Complainant’s websites.
The Complainant is the owner of multiple registrations and applications of trademarks consisting of or containing the famous RED BULL mark. The various trademark registrations and applications RED BULL of the Complainant cover an extensive range of goods and services and span all of 45 trademark classes. The Complainant and its subsidiaries hold national and international trademark registrations or applications consisting of or containing the mark RED BULL in Austria and further 202 jurisdictions worldwide such as the United States of America, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Russian Federation, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Hong Kong, SAR of China, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Province of China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Norway. In addition, the Complainant holds various registered Community Trademark registrations or applications. As examples, the Complainant submitted copies of the following registrations as Annex G [1-6] to its Complaint:
Community Trademark No. 005225611 RED BULL (stylized) with priority date July 27, 2006;
International Registration No. 961854 RED BULL with priority date September 27, 2007;
International Registration 972114 RED BULL with priority date September 27, 2007;
United States Trademark Registration No. 3479607 RED BULL ENERGY DRINK & Device (in colour) with priority date October 29, 2007;
United States Trademark Registration No. 3092197 RED BULL with priority date December 31, 2003;
IR 945573 RED BULL & Device with priority date of July 25, 2007.
The Complainant has run its business under the name RED BULL in Austria since 1987 and internationally since 1992. The Complainant operates its main website at “www.redbull.com”.
As prior UDRP panels have already stated in various cases, the Complainant’s trademark is
famous, as it has a very strong reputation and is widely known all over the world (see Red Bull GmbH v. PREGIO Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-0909; Red Bull GmbH v. Web Wax Designer, WIPO Case No. D2006-0746).
Although “red” and “bull” are both ordinary words, they form a distinctive combination. In Red Bull GmbH v. Tony Marinelli, WIPO Case No. D2001-0522, the panel correctly stated that the “Complainant’s trademark RED BULL is composed of two common words of the English language, which in their combination are arbitrarily used to distinguish the energy drink sold by the Complainant and therefore are inherently distinctive. Such trademarks are in fact very strong marks.” This was confirmed in Red Bull GmbH. v. Grey Design, WIPO Case No. D2001-1035.
While seeking the Complainant’s commercial website, Internet users are intentionally diverted to the Respondent’s website for purposes of commercial gain by creating confusion as to the Complainant’s affiliation with the Respondent’s websites and for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor by diverting consumers away from the Complainant’s websites. Internet users worldwide would associate the Domain Name with the name of the Complainant’s extremely well-known marks. By registering the Domain Name the Respondent is misrepresenting itself as being somehow connected with Red Bull GmbH in general or with Red Bull GmbH products in particular.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
It is common practice with Internet domain names that blank spaces in trade names or trademarks are omitted to form a company's domain name, and so did the Complainant for its main website under the domain “www.redbull.com”.
The distinctive part of the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com> is "redbull", which is identical with the various trademarks and trademark applications containing the RED BULL mark owned by the Complainant. The additional wording “drinks” as a common and purely descriptive term does not change the overall impression of the designation as being a domain name connected to the Complainant and does not reduce the likelihood of confusion, as stated by the panel in the case of Red Bull GmbH v. Domains by Proxy Inc./New Gold Mine, WIPO Case No. D2007-0684; See also Red Bull GmbH v. Emory Virgil, WIPO Case No. D2005-0381. Moreover, such Domain Name creates the impression that the Domain Name is truly connected with Red Bull in general and in particular with the Complainant’s products, i.e., energy drinks. As the panel stated in Red Bull GmbH v. Russell Snyder, WIPO Case No. D2007-0915, “Potential customers would, in the view of the Panel and based on the evidence of the Complainant’s General Counsel, instantly recognize the combined expressions in the domain names as being concerned with Red Bull. Indeed, it is probably the only part of the domain names that would be recognized”.
Furthermore, “[i]t is well-established that the incorporation of a complainant’s mark in full within a disputed domain name may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name – see for example, Nokia Group v. Mr. Giannattasio Mario, WIPO Case No. D2002-0782, referred to in the three-member panel decision The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2005-1137 and Quintessentially (UK) Limited v. Mark Schnorrenberg/ Quintessentially Concierge, WIPO Case No. D2006-1643” - as the panel stated in the case of Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-1857.
As regards the content of the website under the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com>, the consensus view of the WIPO UDRP panelists is that it is irrelevant in finding confusing similarity. In particular, in Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-1698, the panel correctly stated that “there is an important distinction between the domain name on the one hand and the Website on the other. The use to which the site is put has no bearing upon the issue whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, because by the time Internet users arrive at the website, they have already been confused by the similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s mark into thinking they are on their way to the Complainant’s Website”. In the present case, the content of the website is the content of the landing page – “www.xsenergystore.com”.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or any variations thereof, or to register or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks or any variations thereof. A combination of the words "red" and "bull" is purely fanciful. Therefore, nobody would legitimately choose this combination or any variation thereof, unless seeking to create an association to or with the Complainant.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Based on the fame and reputation of the RED BULL mark and the activities of the Complainant all over the world, it can be concluded beyond any doubt that the Respondent purposefully created a domain name, which wholly contains the Complainant’s extremely well-known RED BULL mark and varies it slightly by adding the purely descriptive and common term “drinks” at the end. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to create the misleading impression of being in some way associated with the Complainant, which is not the case. The Respondent was and is quite obviously trying to exploit the fame and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks. The possible aim was and is to attract to the Respondent’s website Internet users looking for information on the Complainant and its activities and divert them from the legitimate websites of the Complainant. The Respondent has no legitimate reason for renewing the registration of the Complainant’s trademark as a domain name. He has registered and is using the Domain Name illegitimately.
Furthermore, the panel correctly stated in CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0071: “[a] domain name is not merely an address it is also a means of identification. As noted in the final report of WIPO: ‘Domain names were intended to perform a technical function in a manner that was convenient to human users of the Internet. They were intended to provide addresses for computers that were easy to remember and to identify without the need to resort to the underlying IP numeric address. Precisely because they are easy to remember and to identify, however, domain names have come to acquire a supplementary existence as business or personal identifiers. The adoption by the Respondent of an Internet address substantially identical or confusingly similar to that of the name, Internet address and trade marks of the Complainant must inevitably and misleadingly divert consumers to that address and have the effect of tarnishing the trade marks.’” This is the same in the present case - the Respondent has no legitimate reason for the registration and continued use of the Complainant’s trademark as a domain name.
None of the circumstances listed under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, possibly demonstrating rights or legitimate interests, are given. The Respondent is not authorized by or related to the Complainant in any way. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent is making illegitimate use of the Domain Name with intent to misleadingly divert Internet users to his website.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on July 30, 2010. However, the Complainant received information from the Mail Delivery System that the connection with Respondent’s email <email@example.com> was refused. The Complainant contacted the Registrar in order to acquire adequate contact details but was provided only with the email address mentioned. It is probable, that the Respondent provided the Registrar with improper contact details. Copy of the correspondence with the Respondent and Registrar was provided as Annex I to the Complaint. The panel in the decision in Société Softissimo v. Owner, WIPO Case No. D2001-1105 rightly stated that “the registration of a domain name under a false identity is an element proving that the domain name was registered or maintained in bad faith within the meaning of §4(a)(iii) of the Policy”. The very same view of panel can be found in Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No. D2001-0775: “[t]he Respondent registered the disputed domain name with false contact details which prevented the Complainant from verifying the receipt of its communications with him. This alone, in the opinion of this panel, is sufficient to establish registration in bad faith, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy not being exhaustive.”
The trademark RED BULL is one of the best known trademarks all over the world and the Respondent must have been aware of this fact when it deliberately registered the Domain Name. The Respondent’s obvious intent was to misleadingly divert the consumers to his website, causing confusion among consumers by creating the impression of a relation with or sponsorship or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant. It is apparent that the intent of the Respondent was to exploit the reputation of the Complainant and the RED BULL trademarks and to disrupt the business of a competitor – the Complainant – by diverting consumers away from the Complainant’s websites.
Both the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name were intentional to attract Internet users to the website. The Domain Name appears designed to attract Internet users who are looking for the Complainant’s products and business activities, appears to cause confusion with the Complainant’s marks and websites, and appears to disrupt the Complainant’s business by diverting consumers away from the Complainant’s websites.
The website to which the Domain Name resolves is a “jump page” and by providing this website Internet users are directed to another site, namely “www.xsenergystore.com”, where an ample range of products is available for sale. The panel correctly stated that the creation of landing pages for disrupting the competitor’s business and for gaining profits from such revenues constitutes bad faith in, e.g., Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey, WIPO Case No. D2009-0258 and Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415.
“Registration of a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization and no legitimate purpose to use the mark is a strong indication of bad faith”, as the panel stated in Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry - Succession Saint Exupéry - D’Agay v Perlegos Properties, WIPO Case No. D2005-1085. Therefore, given the Complainant's numerous trademark registrations for, and its wide reputation in, the word RED BULL, as evidenced by the facts established in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is obvious that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and their reputation.
As the administrative panel in Spencer Douglass, MGA v. Bail Yes Bonding, WIPO Case No. D2004-0261, truly underlines that: “the Respondent registered and is using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, in an attempt to disrupt the Complainant's business and to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants' mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site. Pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(iii) & (iv), this constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii).” The above cited case is in line with the present case since the Respondent has registered the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in order to gain profits from the landing page “www.xsenergystore.com” and to misdirect the Internet users from the Complainant’s website and create illusion of a relationship with the Complainant or its products.
Furthermore, in the case Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel stressed that: “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ’bona fide’ offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.” Again, this principle applies equally to the present case.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel considers that the Respondent, by registering the Domain Name with the Registrar (an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – accredited registrar), agreed to be bound by all terms and conditions of the Registrar’s Agreement, and any pertinent rule or policy, and particularly agreed to be bound by the Policy (incorporated and made a part of the Registrar’s Agreement by reference), which mandates that proceedings be conducted according to the Rules and the selected administrative dispute resolution service provider’s supplemental rules, in the present case being the Supplemental Rules. Therefore, the dispute subject matter of this proceeding is within the scope of the above mentioned agreements and Policy, and this Panel has jurisdiction to decide this dispute.
Furthermore, the Panel considers that in the same manner, by entering into the above mentioned Registrar’s Agreement, the Respondent agreed and warranted that neither the registration of its Domain Name nor the manner in which it may intend to use such Domain Name will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party, and that in order to resolve a dispute under the Policy, the Respondent’s Domain Name registration services may be suspended, and the Domain Name cancelled or transferred.
The Panel also particularly considers that it is essential to dispute resolution proceedings that fundamental due process requirements be met.
Such requirements include that the Parties and particularly the Respondent in this case be given adequate notice of proceedings initiated against them; that the Parties may have a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond, exercise their rights and to present their respective cases; that the composition of this Panel be properly made and the Parties be notified of the appointment of this Panel; and that both Parties be treated with equality in these administrative proceedings.
In the case subject matter of this proceeding, the Panel is satisfied that these proceedings have been carried out by complying with such fundamental due diligence requirements, and particularly concerning the notification of the filing of the Complaint and the initiation of these proceedings giving the Respondent a right to respond.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel finds that Respondent’s Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com > is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s very well-known RED BULL trademark. The Complainant’s trademark was registered significantly earlier than the date of registration of the Respondent’s Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com>.
In addition, the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com> wholly comprises the Complainant’s RED BULL trade mark, with the addition of the words “drinks”. That, although the word “drinks” is generic, its composition with the Complainant’s trademark makes the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com> confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RED BULL trademark.
Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.com” is not a distinctive element, it is just a necessary element required for the registration of a second level domain name. Finally, the blank spaces between trade names or trademarks in Internet domain names are omitted, and therefore do not constitute a distinctive element to any trademark, as being used by the Complainant in its main website at ”www.redbull.com”.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds, in general, from the information and facts that were analyzed and from the lack of evidence to the contrary, that there is no indication that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in connection with the Complainant’s RED BULL trademark nor with the Domain Name under dispute; that the Domain Name under dispute is being used to intentionally misdirect to the Respondent’s website visitors who attempt to visit the Complainant’s website; that the Respondent has not used nor prepared to use the Domain Name in connection with any good faith offering of goods or services as contemplated under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy; nor that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name as contemplated under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy; nor that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue as contemplated under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel concludes that in this case where the registrant intentionally (i) failed to provide its identity or contact data (which may include the registrant’s physical address, and also the administrative, billing and technical contact data); or, (ii) gives false or notoriously insufficient data intended to make it difficult or impossible to communicate with such registrant, and particularly to be served or notified of the initiation of an administrative domain dispute proceeding against the same, as here, the Panel finds it to be evidence of the bad faith in which registrant has acted by registering and using a domain name. From the simple evidence here, the Panel concludes that the registrant has prepared or further intends to use such domain name in bad faith. The Panel lastly considers that according to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, it may be a breach of the applicable registration agreement where a registrant, inter alia, willfully provides inaccurate or unreliable contact information. In the opinion of the Panel, the evidence, as in the present case, of the existence of such inaccurate contact information may well be taken as evidence of bad faith.
The Panel furthermore finds, from the information and facts that were analyzed, and from the lack of evidence to the contrary, that the registration of the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com> by the Respondent is in bad faith, in particular but without limitation, pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, in view of the fact that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website “www.redbulldrinks.com” and/or the website “www.xsenergystore.com”, to which the Domain Name currently re-directs, and therefore has made a bad faith use of the Domain Name.
Therefore, and in consideration of the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements for this Domain Name dispute proceeding, to the factual evidence and legal contentions that were submitted, to the conclusive confirmation of the presence of each of the elements contemplated in paragraphs 4(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Policy, and on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and other applicable rules and principles of law, as directed by paragraphs 14(a) and (b) and 15(a) of the Rules, this Panel orders that the Domain Name <redbulldrinks.com> be cancelled.
Pedro W. Buchanan Smith
Dated: October 22, 2010