официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub
Case No. D2003-0709
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Red Bull GmbH, Fuschl am See, Austria, represented by Schönherr Rechtsanwälte OEG, Austria.
The Respondent is Chai Larbthanasub, Samutprakarn, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <thairedbull.com> is registered with Stargate.com, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 9, 2003. On September 9, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to Stargate.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September 9, 2003, Stargate.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), 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 October 2, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 22, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 5, 2003.
The Center appointed Mr. Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2003. 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.
The language of the proceeding is English.
4. Factual Background
Complainant, an Austrian company, is the producer of the RED BULL energy drink and has registered or applied to register a range of trademarks consisting or including the words RED BULL. Complainant’s registered trademark RED BULL pre-dates Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent registered the domain name <thairedbull.com> on October 27, 2002.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant submits that:
The domain name <thairedbull.com> was registered eight years after Complainant’s RED BULL international launch.
Respondent operates a website under this domain name by using the identical logo of Complainant’s energy drinks, identical trade name, providing the identical product (energy drink) of Complainant.
RED BULL GmbH is the largest world-wide producer of energy drinks.
The RED BULL is a world renowned trademark.
The RED BULL energy drinks, through sales activities, television broadcasts, Internet activities and events sponsored by Complainant, has become well-known in many countries and famous in Austria.
The domain name <thairedbull.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark RED BULL owned by Complainant.
That upon information and belief, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of
its trademarks or any variations thereof, or to apply for or use any domain
name incorporating any of those trademarks or any variations thereof.
As regards the fact that the domain name was registered and is being used in
bad faith, Complainant alleges that:
The Respondent cannot have ignored Complainant’s trademark RED BULL, thus the
registration of the disputed domain name can only have occurred in bad faith.
Respondent seeks to create the false and misleading impression that he acts
in accordance with Complainant.
Respondent is trying to exploit the fame and reputation of Complainant’s RED BULL
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Thus Respondent
has failed to submit any statement. He has not contested the allegations in
the Complaint and the Panel shall decide on the basis of Complainant’s submissions,
and shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default that it considers
appropriate (paragraph 14(b) of the Rules).
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles
the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant
must prove to merit a finding that the domain names registered by the Respondent
be transferred to the Complainant:
1) the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark ("mark") in which the Complainant has rights;
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
3) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights in the RED BULL trademark. It is unquestionable
that Complainant’s trademark registrations pre-date Respondent’s domain name
The domain name <thairedbull.com> integrates the trademark RED BULL in
its entirety with a description of geographical nature, that is "thai"
as a prefix. The panel here agrees with Complainant’s allegation that consumers
world wide will likely think that "thairedbull" is a variation of
Complainant’s trademarks. The mere addition of a descriptive term to an identical
trademark, has been repeatedly held by previous panels as not sufficient to
avoid confusion between the domain name and the trademark. This is especially
true considering that, in the present case, the descriptive term is a geographical
term (i.e. Thai for Thailand) and the trademark RED BULL is renowned worldwide.
It is then more than likely, that consumers will be led to think about <thairedbull.com>
as Complainant’s domain name for Thai users/clients (see e.g. Red Bull
Gmbh v. Tony Marinelli WIPO Case No. D2001-0522
relating to the domain names <redbullwesterncanada.com>, <redbullcanada.org>
and <redbullcanada.net>, where the Panel finding was that "the combination
of a trademark with a geographical name is common practice for many domain names
and does not exclude confusing similarity"; Inter-IKEA v. Polanski,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1614 relating to the
domain name <ikeausa.com>; Wal-Mart stores Inc v. Walmarket Canada,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0150 relating to the
domain name <walmartcanada.com>; and Viacom International Inc. v. Emperor
Sedusa WIPO Case No. D2001-1438 related
to the domain name <mtvasia.net> where the Panel found that: "The
domain name <mtvasia.net> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark
MTV with the addition of the geographical term "asia." The first and
inherently distinctive portion of the domain name <mtvasia.net> is identical
to Complainant’s trademark MTV. The Respondent has associated the geographical
"asia" with the word MTV to create a domain name which is confusingly
similar with Complainant’s trademark MTV."
In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RED BULL.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the disputed domain name. The respondent in a UDRP proceeding
does not assume the burden of proof, but may establish a right or legitimate
interest in a disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c)
of the Policy:
(a) that before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, he or she used
or made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(b) that the respondent is commonly known by the domain name, even if he or
she has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(c) that the respondent intends to make a legitimate, non-commercial or fair
use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert
consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Respondent does not appear to have any connection or affiliation with the
Complainant, which has not licensed or otherwise authorised Respondent to use
or apply for any domain name incorporating the RED BULL trademark. Respondent
does not appear to make any legitimate use of the domain name for his own commercial
or non-commercial activities. Respondent has not been known under this domain
name. Respondent has not filed any Response to the Complaint and has not alleged
any facts or elements to justify prior rights and/or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that all the above,
constitutes prima facie evidence of a lack of rights to or legitimate
interests in the domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the burden
of proof with respect to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has registered a domain name which mirrors an internationally
well known trademark to which he cannot possibly have acquired any rights. According
to the Policy criteria Complainant has shown that Respondent, when registering
the domain name at issue in these proceedings, was well aware of the Complainant’s
trademark RED BULL and intentionally chose to register it as a domain name.
Thus it appears that Respondent, being aware that the use of a well known trademark
would create confusion among visitors, chose the <thairedbull.com> domain
name, in order to attract on his website searchers who were looking for Complainant’s
products. It is Panel’s opinion that the addition of the geographical term "thai"
to the trademark "red bull" may increase the degree of similarity,
as it leads to believe that the Complainant is doing business in Thailand using
the disputed domain name. As previously said, consumers are led to think about
<thairedbull.com> as a domain name of the Complainant, specifically created
for Thai clients. In addition, the Panel agrees with previous panels view that
registration and use of a domain name corresponding to a well known trademark
to sell competitors products amounts to bad faith use and registration (see
The Chase Manhattan Corp. et al. v. Whitely, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0346 where the finding was that: "Respondent’s infringing
use of Complainant’s trademark is aimed at parasitizing the goodwill of Complainant’s
trademark to attract customers to Respondent’s competing service. This is compelling
evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name"
see also AutoNation, Inc. v. Paul Schaefer WIPO
Case No. D2001-0289). Finally, the Panel notes that, in the present case,
rule 4(b)(iv) of the Policy perfectly applies, which states that evidence of
bad faith registration and use is given when: "Respondent has intentionally
used the domain name to attract users to Respondent’s website for commercial
gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
The Panel is therefore convinced that the registration under such circumstances
and the ensuing use of the domain name is evidence of Respondent’s registration
and use in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy
and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <thairedbull.com>
be transferred to the Complainant.
Dated: November 11, 2003