WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Albert Lanken

Case No. D2019-2957

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Fidal, France.

The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Panama / Albert Lanken, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <dpd-lieferung.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 3, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 9, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 December 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 31, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2020.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2020. 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 DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG, a large operator in the courier express market in Europe. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <dpd.asia>, <dpd.com>, <dpd.ch>, <dpdgroup>, <dpd-group> and various similar domain names.

The Complainant owns the DPD trademark in various countries (e.g. United States of America (“United States”) registration No. 2658494 registered on October 12, 2002, and International trademark No. 1217471 registered on March 28, 2014).

The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2019.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the DPD trademark in numerous jurisdictions, including the United States.

The DPD trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name.

It is the consensus view of UDPR panels that the addition of descriptive terms, such as “lieferung” which means “delivery” in German, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8).

The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD trademark, and the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

UDPR panels have largely held that a disputed domain name consisting of a trademark plus an additional term cannot constitute fair use, if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

The Respondent is using the Complainant’s DPD trademark as well as its graphic layout and tries to reproduce the Complainant’s website’s look and feel. Thus, the Respondent diverts Internet users to its own site, thereby potentially depriving the Complainant of visits by Internet users (see Volkswagen AG v. Constantin Amann, WIPO Case No. D2015-2011).

In view of the above, the Panel concludes that there are no indications of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.

Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the circumstances of this case and considering the well-known DPD trademark of the Complainant, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name, including the term “delivery” in German, is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant supports the finding of opportunistic bad faith (see Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163). Moreover, the Respondent’s copying of the Complainant’s website shows the Respondent’s intent to profit in some sort from the Complainant’s DPD trademark.

It follows from the above that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <dpd-lieferung.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2020