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


Volkswagen AG v. Cameron Jackson

Case No. D2016-1910

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Drzewiecki, Tomaszek & Wspólnicy Spólka Komandytowa, Poland.

The Respondent is Cameron Jackson of Kingston, New South Wales, Australia.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <volkswagen.lol>, <volkswagenauto.xyz>, and <volkswagencars.lol> are registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 19, 2016. On the same date, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 20, 2016, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response disclosing the disputed domain names' registrant of record and contact information, which differed from the respondent and contact information contained in the Complaint. On October 5, 2016, the Center notified the Complainant of the registrant and contact information provided by the Registrar, and invited the Complainant to amend the Complaint. The Complainant filed an Amendment to the Complaint, on October 7, 2016, identifying Cameron Jackson as the Respondent.1

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amendment 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 11, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was October 31, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 1, 2016.

The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 2016. 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 identifies itself as "one of the world's leading automobile manufacturers and the largest carmaker in Europe." It has used the VOLKSWAGEN mark worldwide for its products and services, and has obtained registrations of various VOLKSWAGEN marks in a number of jurisdictions, including international registration number 702679, registered on July 2, 1998. In addition, the Complainant or its affiliated entity has registered dozens of domain names incorporating the VOLKSWAGEN mark, including <volkswagen.com>, on June 16, 1995.

The disputed domain names were registered on the dates indicated: <volkswagen.lol> (on August 8, 2016); <volkswagencars.lol> (August 19, 2016); and <volkswagenauto.xyz> (August 30, 2016). The disputed domain names resolve to Registrar parking pages.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

In addition, the Complaint states, inter alia:

"The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or any variations thereof, or to register or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks or any variations thereof. The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant, nor with its subsidiaries."

"VOLKSWAGEN trademark is famous all over the world."
"The Respondent has been involved in numerous WIPO UDRP proceedings before and has been found guilty of serial cybersquatting."

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be cancelled.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. Paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a) of the Rules permit the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint in such circumstances. Pursuant to paragraph 14(b), the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent's default.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to prevail on the merits, the Complainant must satisfy each of the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the mark, VOLKSWAGEN. The Panel determines that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The disputed domain name <volkswagen.lol> differs from the Complainant's mark only with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") (".lol"), a technical requirement of the domain name. In the other two disputed domain names, <volkswagenauto.xyz> and <volkswagencars.lol>, VOLKSWAGEN plays the leading role. The addition of the generic terms "auto" and "cars" (which, incidentally, identify the Complainant's products) is insufficient to defeat confusing similarity.

The first element is demonstrated.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing. Thus, the Respondent has the burden to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has defaulted in this mandatory proceeding. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise.

The second element is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that each disputed domain name "has been registered and is being used in bad faith." Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are "evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith".

It is difficult for the Panel to conclude that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant or its marks when registering the disputed domain names. The correspondence between the parties indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant for consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names, as set forth under paragraph 4(b)(i).

In addition, the Panel notes that Internet users who resort to the disputed domain names are taken to websites whose content includes primarily: "Welcome to [the respective disputed domain name]". Yet inactive use of the disputed domain names does not preclude a determination of bad faith. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 3.2. Instead, the Panel may consider all relevant circumstances in assessing the bad faith element. Here, the well-known nature of the Complainant's mark, along with the Respondent's attempts to shield its identity, further supports the determination of bad faith.

The third element is present.

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 names <volkswagen.lol>, <volkswagenauto.xyz>, and <volkswagencars.lol> be cancelled.

Ilhyung Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: November 21, 2016

1 In the original Complaint, as revealed by the Registrar, a privacy service shielding the underlying registrant was named as the respondent.