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

Raw Coffee Co LLC v. Mohammed Almadfai

Case No. DAE2021-0004

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Raw Coffee Co LLC, of United Arab Emirates, represented by Clyde & Co., United Arab Emirates.

The Respondent is Mohammed Almadfai, United Arab Emirates.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <rawcoffeecompany.ae> is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 14, 2021, AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) 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 UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for – UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the “Policy”), the Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the “Rules”), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (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 March 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2021.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as panelists in this matter on April 19, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 was founded in 2007 under the name Raw Coffee Company with the core activity of roasting, brewing and selling coffee. The Complainant uses the domain name <rawcoffeecompany.ae>.

The Complainant owns a number of United Arab Emirates trademark registrations for the trademark RAW; namely, trademark registration No. 332794 registered on December 20, 2020, trademark registration No. 332800 registered on December 20, 2020, trademark registration No. 179409 registered on April 16, 2014, and trademark registration No. 179410 registered on April 16, 2014.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 9, 2020. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website connected to the domain name <emiraticoffee.com> through which coffee and coffee related products are sold.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RAW. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s domain name with the exception of the country code. The products and services offered by the Respondent are identical to those offered by the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The website to which the traffic is being redirected is under the domain name <emiraticoffee.com>. The Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s activities as the Respondent and the Complainant are closely located geographically. The website at the domain name <emiraticoffee.com> does not include any reference to the Raw Coffee Company. There is no use of, or demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no justification therefore for the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is registered and is being used to obtain commercial advantage by diverting customers.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is prevented from using his trademark RAW in a corresponding “.ae” domain name. The disputed domain name is being used to divert customers of the Complainant in order to gain unfair commercial advantage. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark RAW. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark RAW.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark RAW in its entirety. The addition of the words “coffee” and “company” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ae” should generally be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that the website at the domain name <emiraticoffee.com> to which Internet users are redirected does not include any reference to the Raw Coffee Company, and that there is not any use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, consisting of the trademark RAW along with the terms “coffee company”. The Panel notes the resemblance between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s domain name <rawcoffeecompany.com>, and that the terms “coffee company” relate to the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name would create an impression that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant.

The Panel notes from the public WhoIs for <emiraticoffee.com> that the Respondent is the registrant of the domain name <emiraticoffee.com> to which the disputed domain name redirects users. The domain name <emiraticoffee.com> resolves to a website, which offers coffee products and related equipment for sale. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to his website in order to sell his products. The Complainant was established in 2007 and the first trademark registration was made in 2014. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2020. Both the Complainant and the Respondent are based in the same city, Dubai. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s activity and has registered the disputed domain name to direct customers to its own website where he sells products competing with the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 6(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <rawcoffeecompany.ae> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 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/