WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

GROUP OF EXPERTS

E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda v. SL Master

Case No. DMX2013-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda of São Paulo, Brasil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brasil.

The Respondent is SL Master of San Diego, California, United States of America (“US”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <buscape.mx>. The Registry is NIC-México. The Registrar is AKKY.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the NIC-México a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 8, 2013, the NIC-México transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification from the Center, in the sense that the Complaint was deficient, the Complainant submitted a modified Complaint on March 1, 2013.

The Center verified that the Complaint along with the modified Complaint satisfied the requirements of the Política de solución de controversias en materia de nombres de dominio para .MX (the “Policy” or “LDRP”), the Reglamento de la Política de solución de controversias en materia de nombres de dominio para .MX (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”)

In accordance with the Rules, Article 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced on March 7, 2013. In accordance with Article 5 of the Rules, the due date for the Response was March 27, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2013.

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist of the Group of Experts in this matter on March 4, 2013. 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 Article 9 of the Rules.

4. Language of the Proceedings.

The original Complaint was submitted on February 7, 2013, in English. On February 25, 2013, the Center sent a communication to the Complainant in relation to certain deficiencies of the Complaint, including a reference to Article 13 of the Rules regarding the language of the proceedings. On March 1, 2013, the Complainant requested that the procedure be carried out in English, considering that the domicile of the Respondent was the US. On March 7, 2013 the Center sent a communication to the Parties indicating that the Panel would make a final determination regarding e language of the proceedings.

The Panel has considered the circumstances of the case, and found that the WhoIs information regarding the disputed domain name, which was provided by the Respondent, locates said Respondent in San Diego, California, US. The Complainant requested that, for the convenience of both parties, the language of the proceedings be English (and cited Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich, WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006). Article 13 of the Rules grants authority to the Panel to choose a language other than Spanish as language of the proceedings, taking into account the circumstances of the case. It is clear that the Complainant prefers that the proceedings be conducted in English, because the Complainant and its counsel are not native Spanish speakers. The Complainant argues that the Respondent, who is based in the US, would also find it convenient to communicate in English. Therefore, in order to preserve the rapidness and reasonableness of this procedure, the Panel has decided to render its Decision in English.

5. Factual Background

The Complainant, an e-commerce corporation, is the holder of the following trademark registrations:

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 1, 2012.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states in its Complaint that:

Confusing Similarity

- That it owns several trademark registrations for BUSCAPÉ in Mexico, Brazil and other countries, as well as several domain names composed entirely of the word “buscapé” (and cites Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich, supra).

- That said trademarks are identical to the disputed domain name.

- That it owns several domain names like <buscape.com.ar>, <buscape.com.co> and others that are operational in countries like Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Peru, Guatemala and Brazil.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

- That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant and the Respondent have never engaged in any sort of business negotiation whatsoever.

- That the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

- That there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with an offering of goods or services.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

- That the disputed domain name has been used as a parking page which currently resolves to other pay-per-click websites.

- That the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website due to the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.

- That the Respondent is making an unauthorized and illegal use of the Complainant’s name and trademark

B. Respondent

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

7. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with the LDRP Policy, Article 1(a), the Complainant must prove that:

i. el nombre de dominio es idéntico o semejante en grado de confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios registrada, aviso comercial registrado, denominación de origen o reserva de derechos sobre la que el promovente tiene derechos; y

ii. el titular no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio; y

iii. el nombre de dominio ha sido registrado o se utiliza de mala fe.

In a LDRP proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of these elements is present.

As the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the reasonable allegations of the Complaint, (see Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487). ¹

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BUSCAPÉ (except for the letter “e”) plus the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) “.mx”. The addition of the ccTLD “.mx” is irrelevant for the purposes of this analysis, as it does not add a distinctive character to the disputed domain name (see Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; Société Générale and Fimat International Banque v. Lebanon Index/La France DN and Elie Khouri, WIPO Case No. D2002-0760).

Given that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BUSCAPÉ.

The first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the LDRP, Article 1(c), the following circumstances evidence of rights or legitimate interests:

i. antes de haber recibido cualquier aviso de la controversia, se ha utilizado el nombre de dominio, o se han efectuado preparativos demostrables para su utilización, o un nombre correspondiente al nombre de dominio en relación con una oferta de buena fe de productos o servicios o bien jurídicamente tutelado por alguna reserva de derechos;

ii. el titular (en calidad de particular, empresa u otra organización) ha sido conocido comúnmente por el nombre de dominio, aun cuando no haya adquirido derechos de marcas de productos o de servicios registrada, aviso comercial registrado, denominación de origen o reserva de derechos; o

iii. se hace un uso legítimo y leal o no comercial del nombre de dominio, sin intención de desviar a los consumidores de manera equívoca o de empañar el buen nombre de la marca de productos o de servicios registrada, aviso comercial registrado, denominación de origen o reserva de derechos en cuestión con ánimo de lucro.

The Respondent has not submitted any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, the evidence filed by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click parking page with links to offers to diverse products and services, some of which are listed in Portuguese. This shows that there is an intent to somehow link or affiliate said website to the Complainant and its sites. This cannot be in good faith.

The Respondent has not been commonly known as “buscapé”, the trademark of the Complainant.

The Complainant has stated that it has given no authorization to the Respondent to use its mark BUSCAPÉ in the disputed domain name and there exists no connection between the Parties. This uncontested affirmation suggests that the Respondent is not a licensed or authorized user of the Complainant’s trademark BUSCAPÉ (See Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393).

Considering that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click parking site, some of which offerings are posted in Portuguese, it is clear that there is no legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. It is also clear that there is an Intent to misleadingly divert customers for commercial gain.

The Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered or Used in Bath Faith

According to the Policy, any of the following circumstances listed in Article 1(b) shall constitute evidence of registration or use in bad faith of a domain name:

i. circunstancias que indiquen que se ha registrado o adquirido el nombre de dominio fundamentalmente con el fin de vender, alquilar o ceder de otra manera el registro del nombre de dominio al promovente que es el titular de la marca de productos o servicios registrada, aviso comercial registrado, denominación de origen o reserva de derechos o a un competidor del promovente, por un valor cierto que supera los costos diversos documentados que están relacionados directamente con el nombre de dominio; o

ii. se ha registrado el nombre de dominio a fin de impedir que el titular de la marca de productos o servicios registrada, aviso comercial registrado, denominación de origen o reserva de derechos refleje su denominación en un nombre de dominio correspondiente, siempre y cuando el titular haya desarrollado una conducta de esa índole; o

iii. se ha registrado el nombre de dominio fundamentalmente con el fin de perturbar la actividad comercial de un competidor; o

iv. se ha utilizado el nombre de dominio de manera intencionada con el fin de atraer, con ánimo de lucro, usuarios de Internet a un sitio Web o a cualquier otro sitio en línea, creando la posibilidad de que exista confusión con la denominación del promovente en cuanto a la fuente, patrocinio, afiliación o promoción del sitio Web o del sitio en línea o de un producto o servicio o bien jurídicamente tutelado por alguna reserva de derechos que figure en el sitio Web o en el sitio en línea.

The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows 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 as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click parking site offering different promotions or discounts related to different products and services. Some of these offers are written in Portuguese. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is certainly the Complainant’s audience.

Such website linked to the disputed domain name makes it likely for consumers to be confused and misled by said site when looking for the services provided by the Complainant under the BUSCAPÉ trademark and its own website. (See Edmunds.com, Inc v. WWWEDMUNDS.com and DMUNDS.com, WIPO Case No. D2001-0937 and Pig Improvement Company, Inc. v. Platinum Net, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1594).

The disputed domain name offers advertising, with allegedly questionable discounts throughout different links which uses third parties’ trademarks in anticipation of revenue in an attempt to attract more visitors. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Respondent has intentionally traded on the goodwill of the trademark BUSCAPÉ. (See Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Shen Kaixin, WIPO Case No. D2008-1350)

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the Policy has therefore been fulfilled.

8. Decision

For the forgoing reasons, in accordance with Articles 1 of the Policy and 19 and 20 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <buscape.mx> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: April 21, 2013

¹ The LDRP is inspired in the Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolutions Policy (“UDRP”) so the Panel will take into aconsideration UDRP jurisprudence, when appropriate, mutatis mutandi.