À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Arkady Dorf

Case No. D2012-0962

1. The Parties

Complainant is The American Automobile Association, Inc. of Heathrow, Florida, United States of America (hereinafter ‘’AAA”), represented by Covington & Burling, United States of America.

Respondents are Domains By Proxy, LLC. and Arkady Dorf of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America and San Jose, California, United States of America, respectively.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <aaacarcarepersonalcarshopper.com> and <aaapersonalcarshopper.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2012. On May 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 7, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain names.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfies 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 May 10, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 30, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 15, 2012.

The Center appointed Paul E. Mason as the sole panelist in this matter on June 15, 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.

Domains by Proxy, LLC. is also a listed Respondent in this case because as its name implies, this company registers domain names for its clients on an anonymous basis. According to page 3 of the Complaint, the disputed domain names were registered by Domains by Proxy on behalf of co-Respondent Arkady Dorf who had originally registered them previously.

4. Factual Background

Complainant has been engaged in promoting and providing a wide variety of automotive related products and services for over 100 years.

According to page 5 of the Complaint, the AAA has used its trade and service mark AAA regularly in commerce in the United States since 1902 (which grants legal rights in the mark), with registrations of the mark as far back as 1967. The AAA has also registered its AAA mark in countries such as Canada, Mexico, the Benelux countries, Germany, amongst others. According to page 6 of the Complaint, United States court decisions as well as UDRP decisions have also referenced the AAA mark as a so-called “famous mark”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) Similarity of the disputed domain names to Complainant’s trade and service marks:

Complainant contends that the first letters AAA of the disputed domain names are identical to its marks. Addition of generic term suffixes such as “personal car shopper” and ”car care personal car shopper” do not change this fact.

(ii) Lack of legitimate interest by Respondents in the disputed domain names:

Complainant did not license or otherwise authorize Respondents to use its mark AAA.

(iii) Bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names:

Complainant alleges bad faith registration of the disputed domain names, largely based on the fact that its marks are so well-known as to be famous marks. It also argues that Respondent Arkady Dorf purposely attempted to conceal his identity by re-registering the domain names anonymously with co-Respondent Domains by Proxy, LLC after Complainant sent him cease and desist letters.

Complainant also alleges bad faith use of the disputed domain names based on screen shots of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. These websites are claimed to offer products and services which compete with those of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Numerous UDRP decisions have concluded that mere addition of generic prefixes or suffixes to a mark do not dispel the similar look and feel of a disputed domain name to a complainant’s trade or service mark.

Furthermore, a domain name which entirely incorporates a trade or service mark will look even more similar to that mark. And when the mark is at the very beginning of the domain name, the confusion only increases in the mind of an Internet user.

Therefore this Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant states flatly that it has granted no rights or interests to Respondents in its AAA mark. The Panel considers that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The burden therefore shifts to Respondents to show that such interests do indeed exist. Since Respondents have not answered the Complaint, this Panel finds that they have no such interests.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondents have offered no explanation for their behavior with respect to the registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant, on the other hand, has made out a strong case showing that the AAA mark is indeed famous and that Respondent Dorf may well have attempted to conceal his identity after cease and desist letters were sent. Therefore, this Panel finds that registration of the disputed domain names was done in bad faith.

On the issue of bad faith use of the disputed domain names, this Panel visited the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve and found home pages almost identical to the screenshots included in annexes to the Complaint. These pages do indeed advertise and promote products and services which look to compete with those of Complainant. Not only that, these pages also have links to the AAA’s own websites, carrying an implication that the AAA has approved these sites, especially in light of the fact that there is no disclaimer that these sites are not in any way affiliated with the AAA

This is the core of bad faith use of a disputed domain name – to promote products or services competing with those of the legitimate trademark owner. Therefore this Panel does conclude that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith by Respondents.

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 domain names <aaacarcarepersonalcarshopper.com> and <aaapersonalcarshopper.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Paul E. Mason
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2012

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