' '




:









:

:

:


WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Harrods Limited v. Lawrence Colbert

Case No. D2008-1836

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Harrods Limited, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Burges Salmon LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondent is Lawrence Colbert, Northampton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <harrodsworld.com> is registered with SafeNames Ltd.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2008. On December 1, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to SafeNames Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 2008, SafeNames Ltd. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 12, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 1, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 5, 2009.

The Center appointed James McNeish Innes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2009. 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 Harrods Limited, a private company incorporated in the United Kingdom (or “U.K.”). It is the owner of the world famous Harrods Department Store in the Knightsbridge area of London. The store has existed since about 1849, is world famous and highly prestigious and is estimated to serve approximately 35,000 customers each day. It is said to be a mandatory stop for tourists visiting London. The store has been promoted worldwide for a number of years and its international reputation has been reinforced by extensive overseas exports and an international mail order business that extends worldwide. The Complainant has also been active on the internet for some years and has actively operated the Internet website “www.harrods.com” since February 14, 1999. The Complainant has also registered the mark HARRODS throughout the world for a wide variety of goods and services.

The Respondent is an individual domiciled in the United Kingdom. The disputed domain name was first registered by the Respondent on October 6, 2008.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s contentions include the following:

The Complainant is the owner of a worldwide trade mark portfolio. The Complainant’s portfolio includes the following registered trade marks:

(i) (a) UK Trade Mark No. 1038719 registered on November 21, 1974 for the word HARRODS.

(b) UK trade mark No. 2245927 registered on September 19, 2000 for the mark HARRODS.

(c) Community Trade Mark No. 62414 registered on October 23, 1998 for the word HARRODS.

(ii) The disputed domain name <harrodsworld.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.

The only difference between the Respondent’s domain name and the Complainant’s HARRODS trade marks is the addition of the non-distinctive word “world”. The disputed domain name incorporates in full the Complainant’s registered HARRODS trade mark.

In Harrods Limited v. Vineet Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-1162 the panel stated that the “the linking between the Harrods department store name and trade marks, and any use of the name Harrods in conjunction with a description such as ‘garments’ would suggest a false sense of origin or sponsorship for any associated goods or services. The word adds nothing distinctive and the emphasis is on the name Harrods and it is that which attracts the attention”.

The disputed domain name incorporates a non-distinctive word and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.

(iii) There is no information to suggest rights or legitimate interests in the use of the name “Harrods” by the Respondent. There have been no demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy); nor can a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent (for commercial gain) to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark as issue, be made in the circumstances.

(iv) There is evidence that the Respondent has also registered the domain names <sainsburysworld.co.uk> and <tescoworld.co.uk> amongst others.

The Respondent has stated that he acquired the disputed domain name to pitch a business idea to the Complainant; the idea appeared to involve the disputed domain name being used by the Respondent to offer “end of line” items of the Complainant’s product for sale, potentially in conjunction with sales of the same by eBay. The Respondent indicated that should the Complainant not be interested in entering into a business relationship, the disputed domain name could be transferred. The Complainant’s offered that if the Respondent was to put details of his proposal in an email, they would forward this to the Complainant for consideration. A deadline of November 7, 2008 for this email was agreed.

The agreed deadline passed and no correspondence was received.

(v) The Respondent could not fail to be aware of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Indeed in this case, the Respondent’s express intention in acquiring the disputed domain name was to seek some form of business relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent was evidently well-aware of the Complainant’s substantial reputation and the potential value of using the Complainant’s brand to make money for himself at the time he acquired the disputed domain name.

(vi) The Complainant considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and that continuing to hold the disputed domain name in order to induce the Complainant to negotiate with the Respondent over an unsolicited business proposal is sufficient to show that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. The Complainant also considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.

(vii) The complainant submits that in the absence of any further explanation from the Respondent, the Respondent has either:

(a) acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of HARRODS trade mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy);

(b) registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, and had engaged in a pattern of such conduct (in this regard see the registrations of <sainsburysworld.com> and <tescoworld.com>: Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy); or

(c) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the panel shall decide a complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) That the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.

(ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

(iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Two separate issues fall for consideration. (1) Does the Complainant have rights in the mark and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such mark. On the record the Complainant has established rights in its marks and registrations. It has also demonstrated continued commercial usage since 1849.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks for the following reasons:

(i) The domain name <harrodsworld.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.

(ii) The only difference between the Respondent’s domain name and the Complainant’s HARRODS trade marks is the addition of the non-distinctive word “world”. The domain name incorporates in full the Complainant’s registered HARRODS trade mark.

(iii) The domain name incorporates a non-distinctive word and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation if found by the panel to be proved based upon its evaluation of the evidence presented shall demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you [respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable 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

(ii) you [respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [respondent] are making 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 or service mark at issue.

The Respondent has not submitted a Response and has failed to invoke any circumstance which could have demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests. There is no independent evidence of any circumstances which could have demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy contains the following provisions “Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith”. For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark form reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(i) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Respondent has made no response in this connection. The Complainant has made contentions that would lead to situations mentioned in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. In light of the present record, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent has attempted to attract users to its web site by creating a confusion with the Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

7. Decision

For all 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, <harrodsworld.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

James McNeish Innes
Sole Panelist

Dated: January 27, 2009

 

: https://internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2008/d2008-1836.html

 

:

 

 

:

© , 1998-2024.
, 18+


ArtStyle Group