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

The Estate of Alberto Aguilera Valadez v. Edinson R. Ramirez

Case No. D2017-1249

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Estate of Alberto Aguilera Valadez of Miami, Florida, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Shutts & Bowen LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Edinson R. Ramirez of Barinas, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <juangabrieloficial.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 4, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2017.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on August 8, 2017. 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 the Estate of Alberto Aguilera Valadez, a distinguished Mexican singer songwriter famed for his Latin American music, who was better known as “Juan Gabriel”. He had several trade mark registrations covering his pseudonym including by way of example United States Registration No. 4,473,908 registered January 28, 2014 for JUAN GABRIEL (word mark) in class 9 for a wide variety of goods associated with his career as an international musician.

Juan Gabriel died on August 28, 2016. The Complainant has produced evidence (unchallenged by the Respondent), which satisfies the Panel that Juan Gabriel’s trade mark registrations are now owned by the Complainant.

The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on September 16, 2016 and appears never to have been connected to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its JUAN GABRIEL registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the 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

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name features the Complainant’s trade mark, the word “oficial” which implies that it is an official domain name associated with Juan Gabriel and the generic “.com” Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier. It being permissible for panels to ignore the gTLD identifier when it serves no purpose other than the technical one, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the fame of the late Juan Gabriel and with a view to exploiting the value of the name in some way. The Panel is satisfied on the unchallenged evidence of the Complainant that in the absence of some explanation from the Respondent none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable. The Respondent has a case to answer, but the Respondent has produced no answer.

The Panel can conceive of no basis upon which the Respondent might reasonably be said to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and finds that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has not yet connected the Domain Name to any active website, but the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent must have had some use in mind when registering the Domain Name and it must have related in some way to Juan Gabriel who had died only two and a half weeks before the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent.

In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel infers that the Respondent has no answer to the Complainant’s contentions and registered the Domain Name with the intention of making some dishonest use of it in violation of the Complainant’s trade mark rights. The Domain Name appears on its face to constitute a lie, there being no basis upon which the Respondent could be said to have any association with either Juan Gabriel or the Complainant, official or otherwise.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent constitutes an abusive threat hanging over the head of the Complainant and as such a continuing use in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used 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 Domain Name, <juangabrieloficial.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: August 9, 2017

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/