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

Carlsberg A/S v. Personal / decohouse, decohouse

Case No. D2011-0972

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carlsberg A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Bettinger Schneider Schramm Patent- und Rechtsanwälte, Germany.

The Respondent is Personal / decohouse, decohouse of Hokkaido / Osaka, Japan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carlsbergcanada.com> is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2011, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 13, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2011.

The Center appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2011. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Danish brewing company founded in 1847 with its headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark. In 2009, the Complainant was the 4th largest brewery group in the world. The Complainant owns trademark registrations around the world. The Complainant’s trademark registrations include the following:

Canada

Trademark: CARLSBERG

Registration No. TMA130351

Class: 32

Registration date: March 29, 1963

Community Trademark Registration

Trademark: CARLSBERG

Registration No. 43968

Classes: 21, 25, 32

Registration date: January 7, 1998

United States of America

Trademark: CARLSBERG

Registration No.3062789

Class: 32

Registration date: February 28, 2006

The Respondent is an entity located in Japan. The disputed domain name was resolved to a website, which provided information on and offered inter alia health products, i.e., antioxidants and anti-aging products. The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2008.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends in the Complaint that:

- The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

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

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

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

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The term “Canada” of the disputed domain name is a prominent geographical name, and thus it does not have distinctiveness as a trademark. The part “.com” is a mere gTLD suffix. In this respect, the portions “Canada” and “.com” do not constitute essential elements in comparing the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Given the analysis above, the prominent portion “Carlsberg” of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark are identical with each other, and thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARLSBERG.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As it is virtually impossible for a complainant to prove the negative fact that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is well accepted that a complainant must only show a prima facie case that there are no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the respondent. The burden of proof production will then shift to the respondent.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use and register its trademark or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the said mark.

Under the circumstance that the Respondent did not reply, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant was founded in 1847. The Complainant was the 4th largest brewery group in the world in 2009 employing around 45,000 people. In Japan, where the Respondent is located, the production and distribution of Carlsberg beer have been licensed to Suntory Ltd., one of the oldest companies in the distribution of alcoholic beverages in Japan. This license has been in force since 1986. Today, Carlsberg beer is one of the leading interactional draught beers in Japan. In average Carlsberg has annually sold approximately 3,750,000 liters of beer in Japan since 2006. The Complainant’s revenue in 2010 amounted to DKK 60.05 billion, with an operating income of DKK 10.25 billion and profits of DKK 5.351 billion.

The Panel takes a presumption from the fact above that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the knowledge of the worldwide fame of the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name was resolved to a website, which provided information on and offered inter alia health products, i.e., antioxidants and anti-aging products. As of April 28, 2011, the website resolved to a “Domain Error” page written in Japanese. However, such a change does not affect the constitution of a bad faith use.

The Respondent’s selection of a well-known trademark with the knowledge of its fame, coupled with its use of the disputed domain name to sell commercial products leads the Panel to infer that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name for the purpose of commercial gain by way of trading off the goodwill of the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but instead to divert Internet users searching for the Complainant and its products to its own website. Internet users searching for information regarding the Complainant or its products may mistakenly believe the disputed domain name to be held by the Complainant, leading to consumer confusion or frustration. Although the Internet users would at the end realize that the website they visited is not the one of the Complainant, it is likely to cause initial confusion from which the Respondent definitely gets more visitors to its website.

As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed 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, <carlsbergcanada.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2011

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/