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

Plascar Indústria de Componentes Plásticos Ltda. v. Yungu jo, ---DOMAIN FOR SALE---

Case No. D2021-0249

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Plascar Indústria de Componentes Plásticos Ltda., Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud e Scatamburlo, Brazil.

The Respondent is Yungu jo, ---DOMAIN FOR SALE---, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <plascar.com> is registered with TradeNamed LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2021. On January 28, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2021, 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 March 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2021.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 2021. 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 company established in Brazil. It is a supplier of components for the automotive industry.

The Complainant is the owner of Brazil trademark number 811798097 for the word mark PLASCAR, registered on March 25, 1986. It is the owner of additional registrations for the trademark PLASCAR in Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

The Complainant operates a website linked to its domain name <plascar.com.br>, which was registered on June 25, 1998.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2016.

The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.plascar.com” which is in the nature of a “parking page” containing links to various services. The page is headed “This DOMAIN NAME FOR SALE – Make Offer” together with an email address.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it has traded as PLASCAR since 1982, that the name is distinctive of its business and that it has no meaning as a dictionary word. The Complainant provides information about its trading history.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its PLASCAR trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its PLASCAR trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name, and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name only for the purposes of a website offering links unrelated to the Complainant and to offer the disputed domain name for sale.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in particular, with the intention of selling it to the Complainant for an inflated sum. It refers to the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name and provides evidence that it enquired about the disputed domain name in October 2020, to which the Respondent replied with an offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 7,000 together with an escrow fee of USD 210.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark PLASCAR. The disputed domain name is identical to that trademark, ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which is to be disregarded for the purpose of comparison. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds the trademark PLASCAR to be distinctive of the Complainant, and has seen no evidence that the term has any meaning in commerce other than to identify the Complainant and its business. In the absence, in particular, of any explanation from the Respondent of its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel infers on balance that it was aware of the Complainant’s trademark PLASCAR at the date it registered the disputed domain name and did so with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in that trademark.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading and carries a risk of confusion or association with the Complainant.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant (or a competitor of the Complainant) for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). This conclusion is drawn from the facts that the Respondent’s registered name includes the term “DOMAIN FOR SALE”, the statement at the top of the Respondent’s parking page referred to above and its offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for USD 7,000 plus fees.

The Panel finds in the circumstances that the disputed domain name has been 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 disputed domain name, <plascar.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 27, 2021

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/