Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Hosting

WIPO Case No. D2023-1082

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Hosting
Concepts BV d/b/a Registrar.eu

Case No. D2023-1082

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Germany, represented by UNIT4 IP Rechtsanwälte, Stolz

Stelzenmüller Weiser Grohmann Partnerschaft mbB Rechtsanwälte, Germany.

The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Hosting Concepts BV d/b/a Registrar.eu,

Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <porsche-club-mallorca.com> is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2023. On March 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (WhoisSecure, WhoisSecure) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 13, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 17, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 21, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 10, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 12, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2023. 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 Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, a German company operating in the field of sport cars and owning several trademark registrations for PORSCHE, among which:

- United States of America (“United States”) Trademark Registration No. 618933 for PORSCHE and
design, registered on January 10, 1956;

- International Trademark Registration No. 562572 for PORSCHE and design, registered on
October 27, 1990; and

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 000073098 for PORSCHE and design, registered on
December 12, 2000.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website being “

The Complainant has officially approved several Porsche clubs all around the world, many of them having a
website address with the same structure as the disputed domain name, namely
“ term.tld”, among which: “

“ “ “

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2022, and it is currently inactive, although shortly before the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name redirected to a website in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo were reproduced and a fee-based membership of a self-proclaimed Mallorca Porsche Club was purportedly offered.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark PORSCHE, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the words “club” and “mallorca”, which reinforces the association with the Complainant by creating the impression that the disputed domain name is connected to an official Complainant’s club.

page 3

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used by the Respondent in an attempt to pass off as a Complainant’s official club while seeking a commercial gain.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark PORSCHE is well known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name with the purpose to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and unauthorized competing services, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark PORSCHE and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark PORSCHE.

Regarding the addition of the terms “club” and “mallorca”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical terms, letters, or otherwise) to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark.

The additional terms do not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is typically ignored
when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

“(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 (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 are making a legitimate noncommercial 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.”

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

prima facie

The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a case that the club while seeking a commercial gain.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the
Respondent, who is not associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name
for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel also finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name (identical to the typical domain name structure of the Complainant’s official clubs) carries a high risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

page 5

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, 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 [the respondent has] registered or [has] 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or

(ii) [the respondent has] 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, provided that [the respondent has]
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business

of a competitor; or

(iv)      by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the
respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.

Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark PORSCHE in the field of sport cars is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the disputed domain name copies the typical structure of domain names used by the Complainant’s official clubs.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since the Respondent,
by providing the same or similar services as a Complainant’s official club on the website to which the
disputed domain name was redirecting (and adding in the banner the word “Privat” which notably does not
appear in the disputed domain name), is intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
In this regard, the Panel notes that on the website to which the disputed domain name redirected the
Complainant’s trademark and logo were reproduced and a fee-based membership of a self-proclaimed
Mallorca Porsche Club was purportedly offered.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The fact that the disputed domain name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

page 6

7. Decision

For 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, <porsche-club-mallorca.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: May 1, 2023