À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Mike Kerry, Dzone Inc.

Case No. D2014-2219

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jaguar Land Rover Limited of Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick, Australia.

The Respondent is Mike Kerry, Dzone Inc. of Gwangju, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <landrovermotors.com> is registered with Fabulous.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 23, 2014 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 amended Complaint on December 24, 2014.

The Center verified that the amended 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 29, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 18, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2015.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 2015. 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 owns registrations for the mark LAND ROVER (the “Mark”) in numerous national jurisdictions and, in particular, since 1948 in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia. The Complainant owns the domain names <land-rover.com>; <landrover.com>; <landrover.co.uk>; <landroverevoque.com>; and <landroverdefender.co> that resolve to active websites promoting the Complainant’s globally recognized motor vehicle products.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 29, 2008.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s Mark plus the generic suffix “motors”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark or the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never engaged in legitimate business in connection with the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends the Mark was registered and is being used by the Respondent to disrupt the Complainant’s business by creating a likelihood of confusion such that Internet users will believe the Respondent’s website is associated with, or sponsored by, the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark plus the generic suffix “motors.”. The practice of adding generic suffixes or prefixes to registered and famous trademarks and service marks to create domain names has long been recognized as creating a likelihood of confusion.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically asserted that the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark or the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever engaged in legitimate business associated with the disputed domain name or the Mark. The disputed domain name originally resolved to a commercial website offering links to various product websites before the Respondent rendered the website inaccessible. The Respondent’s current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or provided any reasonable explanation for the Respondent’s adoption and use of the Mark and the disputed domain name that would give rise to any rights or legitimate interests.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s Mark is world renown. The Respondent did not stumble on the disputed domain name by chance or accident. It is apparent that the disputed domain name was intentionally created to divert Internet traffic and to confuse Internet users for the profit and gain of the Respondent. The Respondent is no strangers to UDRP proceedings. The Respondent has been required to transfer numerous domain names. See e.g., DatingDirect.com Limited v Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc. a/k/a Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc., NAF Claim No. A0708001052619 (transferring <wwwdatingdirect.org>); Dell, Inc. v Steve Kerry doing business as Northwest Enterprise, Inc., NAF Claim number FA605000705267 (transferring five domain names that incorporate the DELL mark); Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. The Sheraton, LLC, Worldwide Franchise Systems, Inc., Sheraton International, Inc. v Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc, North West Enterprise, Inc. Kerryweb, Steve Kerry, WIPO Case No. D2007-1150 (transferring numerous domain names incorporating the SHERATON mark)1 . Finally, it should be noted that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for an amount significantly in excess of the cost of registration. Such offers to sell domain names in excess of the respondent’s out-of-pocket costs have long been held to evidence bad faith registration and use.

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 <landrovermotors.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: February 12, 2015

1 The Panel notes the Complainant’s contentions that “Kerry Web Enterprise, Inc.” and “Steve Kerry” are the same or associated entity or person with the Respondent.

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/