About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Mangusta S.r.l. v. DELTA largona

Case No. D2011-1989

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mangusta S.r.l. of Italy, represented by Studio Legale Caneva & Associati, Italy.

The Respondent is DELTA largona of Argentina.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mangusta.info> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2011. On November 14, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 21, 2011, Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On November 22, 2011, the Center informed the Parties that according to information received from the Registrar the language of the Registration Agreement is German, but the Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of the proceedings on November 24, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Thus, the Center decided to proceed in both German and in English.

The Center verified that 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 29, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 19, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 23, 2011.

The Center appointed Stefan Naumann as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2012. 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.

The language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement unless otherwise agreed by the parties, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Here, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is German. Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Center has issued all of its case-related communications in both German and English. Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding, and has been notified of its default. The Panel is satisfied that the Center’s approach was justified, and adequately reserved the discretion of the Panel to determine the appropriate language of proceedings. Taking into account the circumstances of this case, the Panel decided to render its decision in English.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the owner of various trademarks containing the term “Mangusta” alone or in combination with other terms and/or devices designating products in international class 12 amongst others, notably "Mangusta" (International Trademark no. 589104 filed and registered in 1992, and European Community Trademark no. 004920492 filed on February 23, 2006 and registered on January 17, 2007). Complainant's trade name Mangusta S.r.l. also includes the term "Mangusta". Complainant asserts that it has developed, built and sold boats and yachts all over the world since about 75 years, and that it began using the invented term "Mangusta" in the 1980s.

The disputed domain name <mangusta.info> was registered on May 12, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant Mangusta S.r.l. is a well-known company that builds and commercializes various types of yachts and boats. Many newspaper articles and blogs reported that the brand MANGUSTA is a very successful brand.

Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and has no permission from the

Complainant to use any trademarks.

Furthermore the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name using only false information:

- neither in Argentina nor elsewhere in the world does there exist a city called “gfd”; the term “gfd” is formed by three letters placed next to each other on a keyboard;

- Argentina does not have the postal code indicated by Respondent (22556); Argentinean postal codes are formed by letters and 4 digit numbers;

- Respondent provides no street address other than the word “Rippas”;

- the phone number given by Respondent does not ring and does not exist;

- the e-mail given by Respondent, […]@sbiiglobal.net is not active and "sbiiglobal.net" is not a registered domain name;

- the company name given by Respondent, “DELTA largona”, is not associated with any company offering products or services; a Google search for the terms “DELTA largona” lists only WhoIs records of other domain names apparently registered by DELTA largona using famous trademarks such as <barclaypremierleague.info> and <takeme2facebook.info>.

Last, the disputed domain name leads to a parked website with a "pay-per-click" system that displays content and links related to the yacht and boat industry.

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name violates Complainant’s rights in the registered MANGUSTA trademarks. Complainant alleges that <mangusta.info> is confusingly similar to and incorporates an unauthorized use of the MANGUSTA trademarks, and that the only differences between Complainant's trademarks and the disputed domain name is the addition of the suffix “.info”.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety without modification or addition the MANGUSTA trademarks, which are registered internationally and within the European Union. There thus can be no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MANGUSTA trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.

The Panel considers that in the present case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to

Complainant’s trademarks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

One would expect a legitimate business to provide information that allows it to be contacted. Here however, Respondent has carefully hidden its identity in order to make it impossible to actually contact it by any means whatsoever. It uses the disputed domain name to generate pay-per-click revenue from a web page advertising products that compete with Complainant's products, but does not offer any products or services itself. The Panel is satisfied that the lengths to which Respondent has gone to hide its identity, as shown by the evidence and analysis provided by the Complainant, are a clear indication that Respondent does not have and knows that it does not have any right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel considers that in the present case Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name leads to a pay-per-click site that displays sponsored links to competitors. This and the fact that Respondent has carefully hidden its identity demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use.

Taking into account the fact that Complainant's claims and factual statements are well documented by the evidence of record, the Panel is able to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <mangusta.info> be transferred to Complainant.

Stefan Naumann
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 30, 2012

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/