Logged on as Anonymous
ADR Center for .eu attached to the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Arbitration Court)
Panel Decision
§ B12 of the .eu Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR Rules)
Case No.: 02325 Time of Filing: 2006-07-19 13:49:55 Administrative Contact: Josef Herian Complainant Name: Glen Dimplex UK Limited, Mr Laurence George Complainant's Authorized Representative Name: Urquhart-Dykes & Lord LLP, Mr Darren Donne Respondent Name: Zheng Qingying Respondent's Authorized Representative Name: Domain Name(s): GLENDIMPLEX Other Legal Proceedings English summary of the decision: English summary of this Decision is hereby attached as Annex 1 Factual Background
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of :-
a) the Benelux Trade Mark Registration No 793300 for the mark GLEN DIMPLEX ;
b) the UK Trade Mark Registration Nos 652391 and 831016 for the mark DIMPLEX; and
c) the Community Trade Mark Registration No 3874237 for the mark DIMPLEX.
The Glen Dimplex Group are also the owners of the domain names glendimplex.com, glendimplex.co.uk and glendimplex.de.
The Respondent filed for registration of the domain name glendimplex.eu. The Respondent claims to be domiciled in the United Kingdom but the application was filed through a registrar, Buycool Limited, based in Shenzhen, China and the Respondent has given a Chinese telephone number in their contact details on the Eurid database.
The Respondent has not filed any response to the Complainant’s complaint.Parties’ Contentions
a) the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the GLEN DIMPLEX trade mark;
b) in accordance with Article 21(1) of EC Regulation No 874/2004, the domain glendimplex.eu is both identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark rights established under both EU and national law;
c) because of the trading history of the Glen Dimplex Group of companies, it is reasonable to presume that the Respondent sought to register the disputed domain name to either direct prospective customers to a competing website, or for sale to another person and that either of these scenarios is evidence of bad faith; and
d) the registration of glendimplex.eu is an abusive registration and the domain should be transferred to the Complainant.Discussion and Findings
It is the unanimous decision of the Panel that the Complainant has satisfied the criteria set out in Paragraph 11(d) of the ADR Rules and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant.
The Complainant has established rights to the name GLEN DIMPLEX in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law and/or Community law based on:-
a) the registered trademark rights to the marks GLEN DIMPLEX and DIMPLEX,
b) use in the company name of the Complainant, and
c) a long established goodwill in the use of both the trademarks and the name GLEN DIMPLEX in the UK and other countries throughout the world.
All of the Complainant’s trademarks were registered prior to the Respondent’s application for the domain name in dispute.
The Complainant is also the user of the domain name glendimplex.co.uk.
The disputed domain name glendimplex.eu is identical to the Complainant’s Benelux registered mark GLENDIMPLEX and confusingly similar to the UK and Community registered mark DIMPLEX.
On the evidence made available to the Panel and in the absence of any Response from the Respondent, it would appear that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name. No evidence of use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, whether in connection with the offering of goods and services or non commercial use, prior to or after registration has been filed by the Respondent. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not produced specific evidence of registration or use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in bad faith. However, given the distinctive character of the Complainant’s mark, it is very unlikely that the Respondent coincidentally chose the domain name without reference to the Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, the Respondent gives an address in the UK but its telephone contact number is in China, and the Complainant’s group of companies have an established trading reputation in each of these countries. These circumstances together with the passive holding of the disputed domain name would infer registration or use in bad faith.Decision Panelists
- James Bridgeman
- Vojtěch Trapl
- Ranald Robertson
Date: 2006-11-02 Annex 1
a) the Benelux Trade Mark Registration No 793300 for the mark GLEN DIMPLEX ;
b) the UK Trade Mark Registration Nos 652391 and 831016 for the mark DIMPLEX; and
c) the Community Trade Mark Registration No 3874237 for the mark DIMPLEX.
The Respondent filed for registration of the domain name glendimplex.eu.
The Complainant contended that
a) the Respondent did not have any rights or legitimate interest in the GLEN DIMPLEX trade mark;
b) the domain glendimplex.eu was both identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark rights established under both EU and national law;
c) because of the trading history of the Glen Dimplex Group of companies, it was reasonable to presume that the Respondent sought to register the disputed domain name to either direct prospective customers to a competing website, or for sale to another person and that either of these scenarios is evidence of bad faith; and
d) the registration of glendimplex.eu was an abusive registration and the domain should be transferred to the Complainant.
No Response or other communication was received from the Respondent in respect of the Complaint.
In relation to these contentions the Panel held as follows:
a) The Complainant had established rights to the name GLEN DIMPLEX in respect of which a right was recognized or established by national law and/or Community law based on, inter alia, the registered trademark rights to the marks GLEN DIMPLEX and DIMPLEX,
b) The disputed domain name glendimplex.eu was identical to the Complainant’s Benelux registered mark GLENDIMPLEX and confusingly similar to the UK and Community registered mark DIMPLEX.
c) On the evidence made available to the Panel and in the absence of any Response from the Respondent, it appeared that the Respondent did not have any rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name.
d) Whilst the the Complainant had not produced specific evidence of registration or use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in bad faith, this could be inferred. Given the distinctive character of the Complainant’s mark, it was very unlikely that the Respondent coincidentally chose the domain name without reference to the Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, the Respondent gave an address in the UK but its telephone contact number was in China, and the Complainant’s group of companies had an established trading reputation in each of these countries. These circumstances together with the passive holding of the disputed domain name inferred registration or use in bad faith.
e) It was the unanimous decision of the Panel that the Complainant satisfied the criteria set out in Paragraph 11(d) of the ADR Rules and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant.