Case Details for WIPO Case D2005-0736

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case Number	D2005-0736
Domain name(s)	aliance-leicester.com allaince-leicester.com allianceandleciester.com alliance-leciester.com alliance-liecester.com
Complainant	Alliance & Leicester Plc
Respondent	Henao Berenice
Panelist	Theodoulou, Christos A.
Decision Date	13-09-2005
Decision	Transfer

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alliance & Leicester Plc v. Henao Berenice

Case No. D2005-0736

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alliance & Leicester Plc, Leicester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Taylor Wessing, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondent is Henao Berenice, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <aliance-leicester.com>, <allaince-leicester.com>, <allianceandleciester.com>, <alliance-leciester.com> and <alliance-liecester.com> are registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 12, 2005. On July 13, 2005, the Center transmitted by e-mail to eNom a request for Registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On July 13, 2005, eNom transmitted by e-mail 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. On July 16, 2005, a communication was received by the Center, coming from the Respondent’s e-mail, but signed by a different person, an individual named Jeff Grange, claiming that a settlement was on its way. Unlike in Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri (WIPO Case No. D2000-0195), in the present case the Complainant decided not to request the suspension of the administrative proceedings, within the context of paragraph 17 of the Rules, despite the Center’s recommendation of July 19, 2005. As a consequence, the proceedings went on and 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 July 22, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 11, 2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2005.

The Center appointed Christos A. Theodoulou as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2005. 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, Alliance & Leicester Plc., is a United Kingdom financial services company with its origins tracing back to 1852. According to the evidence provided and to some research by the Panel that has confirmed this information, following the merger between the Alliance Building Society and Leicester Building Society, the Complainant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alliance & Leicester Plc v Henao Berenice

Details

AGLC: Alliance and Leicester Plc v Henao Berenice WIPO Case No. D2005-0736
Case: WIPO Case No. D2005-0736
Decision Date: 13-09-2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alliance & Leicester Plc, a financial services company from the United Kingdom, filed a complaint against Henao Berenice, a resident of Papua New Guinea, before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The dispute revolves around the registration and use of several domain names that are variations of Alliance & Leicester Plc's trademarks, specifically aliance-leicester.com, allaince-leicester.com, allianceandleciester.com, alliance-leciester.com, and alliance-liecester.com. The complainant alleged that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and that they were registered and used in bad faith. The panelist appointed to handle the case was Christos A. Theodoulou.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the domain names were confusingly similar to Alliance & Leicester Plc's trademarks, whether the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and whether the respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. The court had to consider the evidence presented by the complainant and the respondent, if any, and determine whether the complainant had proved its case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The court also had to consider the implications of the respondent's default in the proceedings.

The court found that the complainant had presented sufficient evidence that it owned the rights to a plethora of trademarks containing the words "Alliance" and "Leicester" together, and that the respondent had "played" with the pronunciation and spelling of the complainant's marks in order to confuse internet users. The court held that the disputed domain names were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademarks. The court also found that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain names since it was using them to divert internet users to websites selling services similar to those offered by the complainant, without any sort of agreement or relation between them. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith since it intentionally attempted to attract internet users to the Sedo websites for a commercial gain by creating a clear likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademarks.

The court ordered that the domain names at issue be transferred to the complainant.

Orders