Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Gary Charles Brown

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG v. Gary Charles Brown, a k a Gary

Brown, a k a Charlie Brown, a k a Gary Charlie Brown

Case No. D2001-0919

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, a corporation organized in Germany,

with place of business in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Respondent is Gary Charles Brown, a k a Gary Brown, a k a Charlie Brown,

a k a Gary Charlie Brown,, with address in London, England, UK.

2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar

The disputed domain names are <porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>,

<porsche-importer.com> and <porsche-importers.com>.

The registrar of the disputed domain names is Domain Bank, Inc., with business

address in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA.

3. Procedural History

The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:

(a) The Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint by

e-mail received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO")

on July 17, 2001, and by courier mail received by WIPO on July 20, 2001.

The requisite filing fees were paid by bank transfer. On July 20, 2001,

WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, Domain

Bank, Inc. (with the Registrar’s Response received by WIPO on July 25, 2001).

(b) On July 26, 2001, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement

of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail, telefax and courier mail.

(c) August 10, 2001, Respondent’s response was received via telefax by WIPO.

It was subsequently received in hardcopy and in electronic format. Respondent

transmitted his response to Complainant.

(d) On August 20, 2001, WIPO invited the undersigned to serve as panelist in

this administrative proceeding, subject to receipt of an executed Statement

of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence ("Statement

and Declaration"). On August 23, 2001, the undersigned transmitted via

telefax the executed Statement and Declaration to WIPO.

(e) On August 24, 2001, Complainant and Respondent were notified by WIPO of

the appointment of the undersigned sole panelist as the Administrative Panel

(the "Panel") in this matter. WIPO notified the Panel that, absent

exceptional circumstances, it would be required to forward its decision to WIPO

by September 7, 2001. The Panel received a hard copy of the file in this matter

by courier from WIPO.

(f) Following notification from the Panel of circumstances requiring an extension

of the date for decision in this matter, WIPO notified the parties that the

projected date for a decision in this matter would be extended until September

14, 2001.

The Panel has not received any requests from Complainant or 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. The

proceedings have been conducted in English.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the holder of numerous trademark registrations around the world

for the term "PORSCHE". In the United Kingdom, "PORSCHE"

was registered on the Trade Marks Register on April 14, 1954, No. B729217, in

International Class 12, covering motor cars and parts thereof (Complaint, Annex

3). In Germany, "PORSCHE" was registered on the Trade Marks Register

("Urkunde über die Entragung des Warenzeichens") on August 26,

1953, No. 643195, covering, inter alia, automobiles and parts ("Kraftwagen

und deren Teile") (Id., Annex 4). Complainant has furnished copies

of certificates of registration, along with evidence of renewals for these registrations,

as well as evidence that it has extended the scope of trademark registration

for "PORSCHE" to products and services in addition to automobiles

and parts.

Complainant has registered the domain names <porsche.com> and <porsche.de>

and maintains active commercial websites at Internet addresses (URL’s) incorporating

these names.

It is apparent from the evidence submitted that Complainant’s "PORSCHE"

mark is well known throughout the world among consumers of automobiles as identifying

Complainant as the source of products.

According to the registrar’s verification response to WIPO, dated July 25,

2001, "Charlie Brown" is the listed registrant of the domain names

<porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>, <porsche-importer.com>

and <porsche-importers.com>. According to printouts of Domain Bank, Inc.

WHOIS database searches furnished by Complainant, the disputed domain names

<porscheimporter.com> and <porsche-importer.com> were registered

on June 13, 2000, and <porsche-importer.com> and <porsche-importers.com>

were registered on July 30, 2000 (Complainant, Annex 1).

As of the date of the filing of the complaint in this proceeding, two of the

disputed domain names resolved to a standard Internet service provider (E-traders

Ltd.) web page indicating that no web site had yet been established (id.,

Annex 13). Two of the disputed domain names did not resolve to a website. Respondent

does not dispute that no use of the disputed domain names has been made in connection

with active websites.

In addition to the disputed domain names, Respondent has registered numerous

other domain names that incorporate the well known marks of automobile producers,

including (but not limited to), <astonmartinmotors.com>, <astonmartindealer.com>,

<ferrari-dealer.com>, <jaguarimporter.com> and <vwimporters.com>.

These domain names are sometimes registered under names that represent variations

of "Charlie Brown", for example, "Gary Brown", but always

at the same address as Respondent, and including contact information that refers

to "Gary Charles Brown". (Id., at Annex 15).

As of July 10, 2001, the disputed domain names, as well as the other domain

names incorporating the names of well-known automobile producers referred to

above, were posted for auction sale at the E Traders Ltd. auction website (at

URL <www.e-traders.ltd.uk/auction>). The disputed domain names <porscheimporter.com>

and <porscheimporters.com> were each posted with a "reserve"

bid price of £5,000 UK, and showed "current bids" of £2,000 UK and

£2,500 UK, respectively. The disputed domain names <porsche-importer.com>

and <porsche-importers.com> were each listed with a reserve price of £1,000

UK, and showed current bids of £500 UK and £0 UK, respectively. (Id.,

Annex 14a).

Complainant has submitted substantial evidence of investigations regarding

Respondent’s claim to be an importer and dealer in automobiles, including Porsches.

This evidence includes printouts of the results of various Internet searches

of British telephone directories. No facts were found to indicate that Respondent

is doing business as an automobile importer or dealer. There is, it should be

noted, an automobile tire dealer in London operating under the name "Charlie

Browns Autocentres". Respondent does not claim a connection with this business.

(Id., Annexes 12-13).

By e-mail dated July 10, 2001, Complainant (through its counsel in Stuttgart,

Germany) transmitted a cease and desist and transfer demand to Respondent. By

e-mail of July 12, 2001, Respondent ("Gary Charlie Brown")

transmitted an e-mail response to Complainant indicating that he was the registered

owner of the disputed domain names. He also indicated that Complainant’s U.S.

counsel’s office had previously contacted him regarding the disputed domain

names, and that he would furnish a copy of his counsel’s response to that initial

contact. That response, transmitted by the British firm "Mundays"

(with no identification of an individual attorney on the copy furnished by Respondent),

indicated that it represented Charlie Brown, and went on to state :

"Mr. Brown is a motor car importer resident in this country dealing in

a number of sports styled motor cars including Porsche. The use of the above

names are a valuable asset to his business and it is his overriding intention

to preserve them for that use. It is fair to say, however, that they are at

this stage not being used and they are in no way contaminated." (Id., Annex 18-20).

Complainant (via counsel) responded that it was not convinced by Respondent’s

counsel’s letter, and would proceed with WIPO arbitration if its transfer demand,

was not met.

Respondent has submitted evidence of his activities as an importer of cars

consisting of (1) a photograph showing him standing alongside two Porsche automobiles

which is said to have been taken in front of "my last house" (Respondent

asserts there are three Porsches in the photograph, but the resolution of the

picture transmitted does not permit a conclusion to be drawn as to this), along

with his statement that these automobiles were imported (2) a single invoice

made to him for the purchase of a Land Rover in Marbella, Spain (3) a newspaper

article indicating that prices for automobiles in the United Kingdom are substantially

higher than in continental Europe, and (4) a UK license issued to Respondent

to carry on the businesses of "consumer credit" and "credit brokerage".

The Service Agreement in effect between Respondent and Domain Bank, Inc. subjects

Respondent to Domain Bank, Inc.’s dispute settlement policy, the Uniform Domain

Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and

with implementing documents approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999. The Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") requires that

domain name registrants submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding conducted

by an approved dispute resolution service provider, of which WIPO is one, regarding

allegations of abusive domain name registration (Policy, paragraph 4(a)).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it is the holder of rights in the trademark "PORSCHE",

that such mark is used in commerce, and that such mark has become well known

in Europe and around the world to refer to its automotive products (see

Factual Background, supra).

Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered disputed domain names that

are identical or confusingly similar to its well-known mark. The domain names

directly incorporate Complainant’s mark that is, in Complainant’s words, "the

distinctive part of the domain name". It adds:

"The component ‘importer(s)’ is merely descriptive and suggests that there

is a dealership agreement between the parties or the complainant is a licensee

or is somehow sponsored, endorsed, authorized or supported by complainant in

the use of the domain names. The Panels have constantly held that descriptive

elements like these do nothing to prevent similarity (cf. Panel decisions Cases

D2000-0047 - eautolamps.com; D2000-1039

- marutidealers.com; D2000-1291 - minoltacameras.com;

D2000-1424 – armaniboutique; D2001-0102

- nike-shop.com and others; D2001-0174 - pepsi400.com

und pepsisouthern.com)."

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in

the disputed domain names. Respondent (1) has not used or evidenced preparation

to use the names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,

(2) has not been known commonly known by the disputed domain names, (3) has

never been authorized to act as a dealer in Complainant’s products, (4) has

not made noncommercial use of the names and (5) has taken only the step of offering

the disputed domain names for sale.

Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain

names in bad faith: (1) because he has no legitimate interest in registering

Complainant’s well-known mark; (2) he registered the names with the intention

of selling them to Complainant or a competitor for a price in excess of his

out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the names; (3) that he has engaged

in a pattern of registering the well-known marks of others and preventing their

registration as domain names by trademark holders; and (4) if Respondent were

in fact an automobile importer/dealer, and were in fact using the disputed domain

names on an active website, then he would be attempting to divert Internet users

to his commercial website by creating confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship

of or affiliation with his website.

Complainant requests the Panel to direct the registrar to transfer the disputed

domain names to it.

B. Respondent

Respondent states in his own words:

"I reject the fact that I have used Porsche trademark. Porsche trademark

is clearly ‘PORSCHE’. I am the registered owner of the domain name PorscheImporter.com

and PorscheImporters.com this implies that I can buy Porsche cars, be them second-hand

or new whether that be from the authorised main dealer or purchased from a private

seller.

"I the respondent have full rights and have full legitimate interest in

using both the name PorscheImporter.com and PorscheImporters.com (see document

No1) which shows me standing out side of my last house with three Porsche cars

on the driveway, two of these cars were imported, one from Jersey the other

from Germany. In the UK at this present time many people are seeking to buy

their Porsche cars, among others, from cheaper European sources such as Belgium,

Spain, Holland, Germany etc. I can supply proof of cheap import cars as I have

done so myself, (see document No 2). I have been a car dealer for many years

but I am now setting up a website to help people import cheap cars. There

has been various articles in the press, regarding companies supplying cheaper

imports by going abroad such as ‘www.car-prices.com’ among many others. It has

also be advertised on TV programmes such as Top Gear, by Mr Quinton Wilson who

explained in detail how you can save money by buying abroad. On the BBC 7pm

news 22nd July 2001 the DTI said that although some UK car dealers

had put their prices down, the UK car buyer was still paying up to 50% more

for the same car as compared to our European neighbours. The Daily Express 23rd

July 2001 Document No3 ‘Only Germany’s BMW Mercedes and Audi appear to be treating

British drivers the same’. The Automobile Association (AA) state that car makers

view Britain as ‘Treasure Island’. My legitimate interest is to set up a website

and to show people how they can avoid paying such high UK prices by going abroad

possibly Germany, Holland and Belgium and buying them from a European dealer

in the European market and bringing the same car, right hand drive back to England,

pay the UK tax and in some cases make a 50% saving. If the person buying the

car needs finance, (see document 4), showing Office of Fair Trading and Consumer

Credit (renewal) plus Credit Brokerage. I believe that this act by [Complainant’s

counsel] is not for a domain name it is actually the manufacturer trying to

stop this practice and supporting the UK franchise dealer network."

"These domain names have been put on display on a website called <e-traders.tv>.

This website is owned by my accountant. The sole intention of being on this

site is to check for hits. Yes, people did send in bids on these names but none

were ever sold, but it must be said that these names are traffic generating

names as I have not yet decided on a name for the site, and like any business

they have a certain value and it would be madness to say that if a certain price

was offered for a particular name that it could not be sold, this is by no way

bad faith just good business sense. In short none of these domain names have

ever been sold through e-traders and this puts any bad faith claim away.

I have not bought these names in bad faith and will be setting up a website.

This is witnessed and acknowledged by [Complainant’s counsel] under Respondents

Activities where he states ‘where the visitor is informed that this site

has been registered for a client who has not yet moved in’ I am merely adding

value to these names by checking on hits or bids."

"The final website that I will trade on is unclear at this moment. I have

two claims in for a dot biz and dot info name. I have also got IP claim string

on a dot biz name. If I am successful in achieving one of these new domains

I will then set the site up under one of these names but if not I have to look

elsewhere for another name but the sole intention of the names that you find

listed is to act as traffic catchers for my site. If someone wants to import

a Porsche they will probably type in Porsche importers which will take them

to my main website which is to be called dot biz? or dot info?"

"I have not included Porsche-Importer.com or Porsche-Importers.com in

the above as I have chose not to renew these names."

"The internet is about changing the way we buy, (see document No. 3) .

Government Ministers a year ago ‘condemned the industry as anti-competitive’

and goes on to say ‘Change the way cars are sold’."

6. Discussion and Findings

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy")

adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on

August 26, 1999, (with implementing documents approved on October 24, 1999),

is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain

name registration The Panel will confine itself to making determinations necessary

to resolve this administrative proceeding.

It is essential to dispute resolution proceedings that fundamental due process

requirements be met. Such requirements include that a respondent have notice

of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy, and the

Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"),

establish procedures intended to assure that respondents are given adequate

notice of proceedings commenced against them, and a reasonable opportunity to

respond (see, e.g. paragraph 2(a), Rules).

In this case, the Panel is satisfied that WIPO took all steps reasonably necessary

to notify the Respondent of the filing of the complaint and initiation of these

proceedings. Respondent has filed a response to the complaint indicating that

he received notice and was afforded an adequate opportunity to respond.

As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the Complainant in this proceeding

is an enterprise based in Stuttgart, Germany and Respondent is an individual

residing in the United Kingdom. The Rules prescribe that "A Panel shall

decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and

in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law

that it deems applicable." In addition to the Policy, the Panel will refer

as appropriate to the laws of the European Union regulating trademarks applicable

in Germany and the United Kingdom, and to the United Kingdom Trade Marks Act.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three elements that must be established

by a Complainant to merit a finding that a Respondent has engaged in abusive

domain name registration, and to obtain relief. These elements are that:

(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain

name; and

(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad

faith.

Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant

relief.

Complainant is the holder of the registered trademark "PORSCHE" and

uses that mark in commerce (see Factual Background supra). The

"PORSCHE" mark is well known in the United Kingdom, Germany and around

the world. Complainant’s rights in the mark arose at least as early as August

26, 1953, the date of the first registration at the German Patent Office submitted

in this proceeding, and arose in the United Kingdom at least as early as April

14, 1954, the date that the mark was registered on the Trade Marks Register

by the U.K. Patent Office. Complainant’s rights in the mark substantially predate

Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names in June and July 2000.

Respondent has registered the domain names <porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>,

<porsche-importer.com> and <porsche-importers.com>. Each of these

names begins by directly incorporating Complainant’s well-known mark, adds (with

or without a hyphen) the term "importer" or "importers"

and the generic top level domain (gTLD) ".com".

The Policy requires the Panel to determine whether the disputed domain names

are identical or "confusingly similar" to Complainant’s mark. This

determination is common to EU and British law on trademark infringement that

inquires into "likelihood of confusion on the part of the public"

[1]. Professor Cornish has summarized the

views of the British courts evaluating likelihood of confusion, observing that

"these decisions all looked at the circumstances overall in order to determine

whether there was, in a realistic sense, some likelihood of confusion [2].

In the present proceeding, Respondent has combined Complainant’s well-known

mark with term "importer/s" that describes an activity (that is, the

transportation into a country of products from another country or territory)

that would commonly be associated with a producer or dealer in automobiles.

The combination "Porsche Importer" uses Complainant’s mark as the

principal identifier of a business that engages in trade of Complainant’s products.

Although it is possible that some members of the public, in viewing the disputed

domain names, will conclude that persons other than Complainant are acting as

importers of Porsche automobiles, there is nevertheless a likelihood that the

public, viewing the domain names, will draw that conclusion that Complainant

is the enterprise that is undertaking to provide the subject products. The public

(in this case Internet users) will be confused as to the source of the products

or sponsorship of the activities.

There is nothing in the disputed domain names that would signal the public

that Respondent is distinguished from Complainant, such as by use of the terms

"Second Hand" or "Used".

Respondent is not in fact using Complainant’s mark in a business. He has only

offered the disputed domain names for sale. There is nothing therefore on a

website or elsewhere that would seek to dispel the confusion that is likely

to arise from use of the disputed domain names standing alone.

The addition of the gTLD ".com" does not dispel Internet user confusion

because domain name registrants must make use of a gTLD, and ".com"

does not in this case signal that Respondent is distinct from Complainant.

The Panel determines that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar

to Complainant’s well-known mark. Complainant has established the first element

of abusive registration and use of the disputed domain names.

The second element of a claim of abusive domain name registration and use is

that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)). The Policy enumerates several

ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests:

"Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation,

if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented,

shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for

purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii)

(i) before any notice to you 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." (Policy, paragraph 4(c))".

The Panel notes that Respondent was obviously aware of Complainant’s rights

in its mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names, and might well

be assumed to have been aware of a dispute at the time he undertook to register

them. In any event, although Respondent has asserted his preparations to make

use of the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services,

he has not provided the Panel with evidence adequate to support this claim.

A photograph of Respondent standing alongside two or three Porsche automobiles

at his alleged former residence does not remotely establish Complainant as a

dealer in Porsche automobiles. Nor does an invoice for purchase of a single

Land Rover, or his registration to carry on a consumer credit business.

Respondent also appears to assert that he is making fair use of the Complainant’s

mark in the disputed domain names. Because the Panel takes the view that only

determinations necessary to the outcome of administrative proceedings should

be made, it will not address here the circumstances under which a fair use of

Complainant’s mark might be made, except to note that there is a substantial

number of judicial decisions in Europe (including the United Kingdom) regarding

the circumstances under which a trademark may be fairly used in the course of

trade by a person other than the trademark holder. The Policy, however, provides

the possibility for establishing rights or legitimate interests in a domain

name only when the registrant of the name is "making" fair use of

the name, and it is clear in this case that Respondent has not made any use

of the disputed domain names other than to offer them for sale. Although there

may be some reasonable time lag between the registration of domain names and

their "fair" use, in this case the domain names were registered one

year before the initiation of this dispute, and this is not a reasonable time

lag under the particular circumstances.

Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

domain names. Thus, Complainant has established the second element necessary

to prevail on its claim that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration

and use.

The Policy indicates that certain circumstances may, "in particular but

without limitation", be evidence of bad faith (Policy, para. 4(b)). Among

these circumstances are (1) that the domain name has been registered or acquired

by a respondent "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 [respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket

costs directly related to the domain name" (Id., para. 4(b)(i));

(2) that a 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" (id., para. 4(b)(ii)), and (3) that

a respondent "by using the domain name, … [has] 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 mark

as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s]

web site or location of a product or service on [its] web site or location"

(id., para. 4(b)(iv)).

Respondent posted the disputed domain names incorporating Complainant’s well-known

mark for sale, and set "reserve prices" substantially in excess of

his out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the names. He received offers

for these names, but did not reach his reserve bid price. Respondent has also

offered for sale domain names incorporating numerous other well-known marks

of automobile companies.

The list of factors constituting bad faith under the Policy is illustrative,

not exhaustive.

Regardless whether Respondent intended to offer the disputed domain names for

sale specifically to Complainant or a competitor, Respondent had no rights to

offer for sale or sell rights in Complainant’s marks to any person, and to make

substantial profits from such sales. Respondent does not avoid responsibility

for his acts based on his assertion that his accountant posted the names for

sale to research the level of hits on the names for his future business purposes.

The Panel must draw reasonable conclusions from evidence presented to it, and

in this case the reasonable conclusion is that Respondent offered the disputed

domain names for sale in order to profit from the well-known mark incorporated

in them.

The Panel determines that Respondent acted in bad faith within the meaning

of paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy by registering and using the disputed

domain names by offering them for sale at prices substantially in excess of

his out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the names.

In light of this determination, the Panel need not also determine whether Respondent

has engaged in a pattern of registering the marks of Complainant and others

to prevent them from registering them in domain names.

Complainant has established the third and final element necessary for a finding

that the Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and use.

The Panel will therefore request the registrar to transfer the domain names

<porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>, <porsche-importer.com>

and <porsche-importers.com> to the Complainant.

7. Decision

Based on its finding that the Respondent, Charlie Brown, has engaged in abusive

registration and use of the domain names <porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>,

<porsche-importer.com> and <porsche-importers.com> within the meaning

of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain names

<porscheimporter.com>, <porscheimporters.com>, <porsche-importer.com>

and <porsche-importers.com> be transferred to the Complainant, Dr. Ing.

h.c.F. Porsche AG.

Frederick M. Abbott

Sole Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2001

Footnotes:

1. British trade mark law has implemented

the requirements of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to

approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks in the Trade

Marks Act of 1994. See W.R. Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents,

Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (4th ed. 1999), chap. 17.

2. Id., at 17-96.

More cases by this complainant

• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG — D2024-0457 · Terminated
• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. EUROPORSCHE Kft — D2023-4317 · europorsche.com, porsche-javitas.com · Transfer · 05 Dec 2023
• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG — D2023-3466 · Terminated
• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Hosting Concepts BV d/b/a Registrar.eu — D2023-1082 · registrar.eu, porsche-club-mallorca.com · Transfer · 01 May 2023
• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. dan sight — D2023-0693 · ipo.com, porsche-ipo.com · Transfer · 17 Apr 2023
• Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG — D2022-4934 · Terminated