WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
OSRAM GmbH v. Igor Ostapenko
Case No. D2013-0899
1. The Parties
The Complainant is OSRAM GmbH, Munich, Germany, represented by Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner, Germany.
The Respondent is Igor Ostapenko, of Moscow, Russia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <osram.pro> (the "Domain Name") is registered with EnCirca, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 23, 2013, the Registrar 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 10, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 30, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2013.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 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 the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a world-famous lighting manufacturing company. It and its successor entities have carried on business under the trademark OSRAM since at least 1906. It currently employs more than 43,000 people and supplies customers in about 150 countries. The Complainant is the proprietor of more than 500 trademarks and service marks in respect of OSRAM in over 150 countries and regions including German trademark number 2000427 registered as of December 22, 1990 and Community trademark No. 000027490 registered as of April 1,1996.
The Domain Name was registered on February 18, 2013. At the date of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a holding page relaying the features of “.pro” domain names. According to the Domain Tools Reverse WhoIs Lookup exhibited to the Complaint, the Respondent has 1,101 domain name registrations.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its OSRAM trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ignoring the suffix ".pro", the Domain Name is identical to the trademark OSRAM in which the Complainant has undoubted, widespread rights. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. In view of the notoriety of the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark, the nature of the Domain Name and its passive use resolving to a domain holding page, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In the absence of a Response, there is no rebuttal of this strong prima facie case. The Panel cannot conceive of any such rights or legitimate interests.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Although the Domain Name does not appear to be in active use, resolving to a domain holding page detailing the features of the .pro domain, the consensus view amongst panelists is that this does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") and in particular the Telstra decision – Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. It is necessary to examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. In this case, for the reasons set out above, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate interest the Respondent could have in the Domain Name, comprising as it does the famous OSRAM trademark, or of any good faith reason to register the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and in the view of the Panel the Respondent must have had the Complainant's trademark in mind and been fully aware of the Complainant's rights and interests in the mark when he registered the Domain Name. The Panel considers that the clear inference is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith fully aware of the notoriety of the mark and intending to derive some benefit from the Complainant's reputation in the mark. In the circumstances, in the Panel's view, the passive use of the Domain Name also amounts to bad faith use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <osram.pro> be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: July 31, 2013