Источник информации:
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

Cassa di Risparmio di Ascoli Piceno v. Ilhwa

Case No. D2009-0970

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Cassa di Risparmio di Ascoli Piceno of Italy, represented by Studio Legale Perani, Italy.

The Respondent is Ilhwa of the Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carisap.com> is registered with Netpia.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 17, 2009. On July 17, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Netpia.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 20, 2009, Netpia.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. 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").

On July 23, 2009, the Center notified the parties, in both Korean and English, of the Center`s procedural rules relevant to the language of the proceeding. The Center informed the parties that according to the registrar, the language of the registration agreement is Korean, and that the Complaint was submitted in English. In addition, the Center specifically requested the Complainant to provide at least one of the following: "1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English; or 2) submit the Complaint translated into Korean; . . . or 3) submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings . . . ." To the Respondent, the Center stated, "In all cases, if the Respondent is intending to participate in these proceedings, and/or has any comments on the Complainant`s submission replying to this notification, the Respondent is requested to submit these to the Center by July 30, 2009". The Center also instructed the Respondent, "Specifically in the case of the Complainant submitting (or indicating that it will submit) a request for the language of proceedings to be English, and the Respondent objects to such request, the Respondent is invited to indicate that objection for the record, and to submit any arguments/supporting materials . . . as to why the proceedings should not be conducted in English".

On July 28, 2009, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any response or material. On July 31, 2009, the Center notified the parties, in both Korean and English, of its decision to "1) accept the Complaint as filed in English; 2) accept a Response in either Korean or English; 3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available".

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent, in both Korean and English, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 31, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 20, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent`s default on August 21, 2009, again, in both Korean and English.

The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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.

As discussed herein, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding will be English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an Italian company that provides banking services. It has used, in connection with its business, the mark CARISAP, which appears to be an acronym for the company`s full name – Cassa di Risparmio di Ascoli Piceno. The Complainant obtained registration in Italy for CARISAP GRUPPO INTESA, on February 1, 2007, and CARISAP, on March 10, 2009. The Complainant had previously registered the domain name <carisap.it>, on December 10, 1997.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <carisap.com> on May 20, 2009.

5. Parties` Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant`s contentions. Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules permit the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent`s default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Initially, the Panel must address the language of the proceeding. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The language of the registration agreement is Korean. Importantly, however, paragraph 11(a) also states that the determination of the language of the proceeding is "subject to the authority of the Panel . . ., having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding". The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English, and the Panel agrees.

After receiving the Complaint submitted in English, the Center notified the parties, in both Korean and English, of the Center`s procedural rules regarding the language of the proceeding. The Center specifically stated that the Respondent may object timely to proceeding in English. The Respondent did not respond to the Center`s notification, and then defaulted. Under the circumstances, with only the Complainant remaining, there is little point in proceeding under the language of the registration agreement. Therefore, the Panel determines that English will be the language of the case deliberation.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the mark CARISAP. The Panel determines that the disputed domain name <carisap.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant`s mark CARISAP.

The first element is established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden thus shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has defaulted. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent`s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise.

The second element is demonstrated.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name is shown when the Respondent, by using the domain name, has "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent`s] website. . ., by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant`s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement" of the Respondent`s website or of products on the website.

Here, the Respondent has used a domain name that is virtually identical to the Complainant`s mark, for a searchable portal website that has links to various items, including those related to financial services.

The requisite bad faith element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is demonstrated.

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 domain name <carisap.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ilhyung Lee
Sole Panelist

Dated: August 31, 2009