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


The Coca-Cola Company v. Private Registration

Case No. D2012-1414

1.The Parties

The Complainant is The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by Parks IP Law LLC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Private Registration of Nanjing, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mycokerewads.com> is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2012. On July 12, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 12, 2012, Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 19, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both the Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On July 20, 2012, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit its comments.

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 July 27, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 16, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 17, 2012.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on August 31, 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.

Language of Proceedings

The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceedings on the ground that the websites that the disputed domain name previously resolved to and currently resolves to were and are entirely in English.

It is clear the Respondent can communicate in English and the Panel therefore determines the language of proceedings to be English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a large multinational beverage company. It has trademark registrations for COKE worldwide and for MY COKE REWARDS, MYCOKEREWARDS and MYCOKEREWARDS.COM in the United States.

“My Coke Rewards” is a customer incentive scheme operated by the Complainant which, amongst other things, utlises the website “www.mycokerewards.com”.

The disputed domain name <mycokerewads.com> was registered on December 10, 2006.

The disputed domain name until recently resolved to a site.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark MYCOKEREWARDS.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not registered any trademarks in the name “My Coke Rewards”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was being used to attract web users to the site and provide personal information as part of a phishing scheme that could be used to defraud them.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

This is a very simple case of the abuse of a domain name that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks MYCOKEREWARDS.COM, MY COKE REWARDS, and MYCOKEREWARDS save for the removal of the letter “r”.

The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark COKE, which has a long standing reputation worldwide.

The disputed domain name is therefore clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.

The first element of the UDRP is made out.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.

Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.

This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:

(iv) “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

Moreover the use of the disputed domain name as part of a phishing scheme is as bad an example of bad faith that you can get.

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 <mycokerewads.com>be transferred to the Complainant.

Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2012