WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bev Marks (Australia) Pty Ltd v. Domain Manager

Case No. D2018-2789

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bev Marks (Australia) Pty Ltd of Hallam, Victoria, Australia, represented by B2B Lawyers, Australia.

The Respondent is Domain Manager of Victoria, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bevmarks.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 7, 2018, 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 December 14, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2019. On January 7 and 10, 2019, the Center received informal communications from the Respondent.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 2019. 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 Bev Marks (Australia) Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Australia. According to the Complaint, the Complainant is a well-known bed and bedroom franchise comprising of eleven retail stores.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for BEV MARKS, the earliest of which is Australian registered trade mark number 1057519, registered on May 27, 2005 (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant also owns a domain name which incorporates the Trade Mark, being <bevmarks.com.au>.

The Respondent did not file a response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 15, 2008. The website at the Disputed Domain Name currently displays a notice stating that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale for offers above AUD 1,488.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark, as it fully incorporates the Trade Mark and no additional terms have been added.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because:

- the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade mark;

- the Respondent does not own any trade marks associated with the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate purpose, but rather purely for the purpose of reselling; and

- the Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent nor has the Complainant authorized the use of the Trade Mark.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of re-selling that domain name for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs. The Disputed Domain Name is being advertised for “offers above AU $1,488.” In circumstances where the Respondent is making no legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name, the minimum advertised price is far in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs.

The Complainant sent correspondence to a representative of the Respondent, demanding the Respondent withdraw the Disputed Domain Name and offering to purchase it for AUD 500. The representative of the Respondent stated that the Disputed Domain Name could be purchased for AUD 2,500 – AUD 3,000. The Complainant submits that the price sought by the Respondent is far in excess of the Respondent’s likely out-of-pocket costs associated with the Disputed Domain Name.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate purpose.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the Disputed 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 Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements remains on the Complainant even though the Respondent has not filed a Response.

The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Airbus SAS, Airbus Operations GmbH v. Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2059). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a Response.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

In this case the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark as it incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety and no additional terms have been added. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” can be discounted for the purposes of establishing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark. See Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Emil Boc, WIPO Case No. D2009-1535.

The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel considers that the Complainant has made out a prima face case. This finding is based on the following:

- The Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website at the Disputed Domain Name currently displays a notice stating that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale for offers above AUD 1,488 (this is discussed further in Section C below).

- The Complainant has not authorized or otherwise given the Respondent permission to use the Disputed Domain Name.

- There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor has registered or common law trade mark rights in relation to this name.

- The Respondent has not been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent has offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, for an amount far greater than the likely out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. As such, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted and the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Complainant has had registered rights in the Trade Mark since 2005. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2008. Given that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark and that the Trade Mark is not a generic or descriptive term, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Mark at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

The website at the Disputed Domain Name currently displays a notice stating that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale for offers above AUD 1,488. The Complainant also submits that, in response to a conversation by the Complainant, a representative of the Respondent offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale for between AUD 2,500 and AUD 3,000.

Registering or acquiring a domain name for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to a trade mark owner for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name is an indication of registration and use of the relevant domain name in bad faith (see paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). Out-of-pocket costs include the costs of obtaining, registering, and maintaining a domain name. This issue of “excessive” out-of-pocket costs is considered on a case-by-case basis.

In this Panel’s experience, the amount for which the Disputed Domain Name is advertised for sale, being AUD 1,488 would greatly exceed the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly associated with the Disputed Domain Name. In circumstances where there is no active website associated with the Disputed Domain Name and no evidence that there has been, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket costs is evidence of registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

Further, in circumstances where the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent did not file a response and the Disputed Domain Name is registered to a privacy service, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant succeeds on the third element 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 <bevmarks.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 30, 2019