Confederacion Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v. ccoo.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL

DECISION

Confederación

Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v. ccoo.com

Case No. D2003-0099

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confederación

Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.), Fernandez de la Hoz, 12, D.P. 28010

Madrid, Spain, represented by Nominalia Internet, S.L. of Spain.

The Respondent is ccoo.com,

Fskldfj, Tuluntuo 675187, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and

Register

The domain name the subject

of the Complaint is <ccoo.com> (the "domain name").

The Registrar with which

the domain name is registered is eNom, Inc. of 16770 NE 79th St.

Suite 205, Redmond, WA 98052, United States of America (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed

with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center")

on February 10, 2003. On February 12, 2003, the Center transmitted

by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection

with the domain name. On February 18, 2003, the Registrar transmitted by email

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.

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 February 18, 2003.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was

March 10, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2003.

The Center appointed Dr

Annabelle Bennett SC as the Sole Panelist in this matter on March 20, 2003.

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 following facts are

asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint and are not disputed. The Panel

finds these facts are proved.

The Complainant is a Spanish

democratic trade union. It is a member of the International Confederation of

Free Union Organizations and of the European Confederation of Unions. It has

approximately 950,000 affiliates and more than 100,000 union delegates.

The Complainant is known

and referred to in Spain by the name CC.OO. CC.OO. is and has been since at

least 1973, a widely known trademark associated with the Complainant. The Complainant

is the holder of the domain name <ccoo.es> and maintains its web site

at that domain name.

The Complainant owns the

following registrations for the trademark CC.OO. (in a stylised representation)

in Spain:

Mark

Reg.

No.

Reg.

Date

Goods

and Services

CC.OO.

(stylised)

2,161,686

April 20,

1999

Various

goods in class 37.

CC.OO.

(stylised)

2,161,687

April 5,

1999

Various

goods in class 39.

CC.OO.

(stylised)

2,161,688

April 20,

1999

Various

goods in class 40.

The Respondent established a web site which was formerly (but

no longer is) accessible at the domain name and which made available sexually

explicit and pornographic material. The domain name was registered by the Respondent

on March 22, 2000.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts

that the domain name should be transferred to it as it is able to satisfy all

three conditions provided in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4a(i):

Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name

The Complainant asserts

that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark CC.OO.,

in which the Complainant has rights. The registration numbers of the Complainant’s

trade mark and the goods in respect of which it is registered in Spain are detailed

above.

The Complainant asserts

that the only difference between the Complainant’s trademark CC.OO. and the

relevant part of the domain name is the additional character "." which

is included in the trademark. The Complainant asserts that this additional character

does not alter the visual identity of the domain name, and that the virtual

identity between the domain name and the trademark meets the requirements of

paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4a(ii):

Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends

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

domain name. It relies upon assertions to the following effect:

(1) The Respondent has

neither used nor made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s use of the

domain name is likely to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark and does not demonstrate

a legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent. Further, the services offered

by the Respondent are not bona fide.

(2) The Complainant acquired

rights in the trade mark CC.OO. before the registration of the domain name by

the Respondent. The domain name was registered on March 22, 2000,

whereas the Complainant has had rights in the registered trademark since April

5, 1999. Further, the trade mark CC.OO. has been widely known in connection

with the Complainant at least since 1973.

(3) The Respondent has

not been known by the domain name or by a name relating to the domain name.

Before the domain name was registered, the Respondent did not carry on business

under, and was not commonly known by, the domain name.

(4) The Respondent has

no relationship with the legitimate owner of the rights relating to the trademark

CC.OO., and has never had any rights in relation to that trademark. Nor has

the Respondent been authorised under any agreement to use the trademark CC.OO.

The Respondent has no legitimate use for the trademark.

Paragraph 4a(iii):

Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends

that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It

relies upon assertions to the following effect:

(1) The Respondent apparently

registered the domain name under a pseudonym, being <ccoo.com>. In addition,

the Respondent apparently supplied invented address details to the Registrar.

These include the details "tuluntuo" and "fskldfj," which

were provided in relation to the billing contact for the domain name. This constitutes

evidence of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith: Trip.com

Inc. v. Daniel Deamone, WIPO Case No.

D2001-1066; Ceyx Technologies v. Ceyx.Com, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0681.

(2) It appears that the

Respondent is attempting to hide its identity, presumably with the intention

of enabling the Respondent to sell the domain name or with the purpose of making

it difficult for the Complainant to take legal action against the Respondent.

The circumstances, including the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark

and the reputation of the Complainant, suggest that the Respondent knew of the

Complainant’s trademark CC.OO. and did not reproduce it in the domain name by

coincidence.

(3) The association of

the domain name with a pornographic web site is sufficient evidence to show

the unscrupulousness of the Respondent in the use of the domain name: Christian

Salvesen plc v. Paul Dunbabin, WIPO Case

No. D2001-0858; Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Mike Rodgerall,

WIPO Case No. D2000-0568; National

Football League Properties Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment

Co., a/k/a chargergirls.net, WIPO Case

No. D2000-0118.

(4) The Respondent is not

using the domain name other than so as to prevent the Complainant from making

a legitimate use of its trade mark in a corresponding domain name, to attract

internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with

the Complainant’s trade mark CC.OO., or to force the Complainant to make an

offer for the purchase of the domain name.

B. The Respondent

The Respondent did not

reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4a(i):

Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name

The domain name in issue

is <ccoo.com>. The relevant part of the domain name is "ccoo".

The domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s trademark CC.OO.

save for the character "." and the stylised features of the trade

mark as registered. The Panel is thus satisfied that the domain name is confusingly

similar to the trademark CC.OO., which is registered in the name of the Complainant.

Paragraph 4a(ii):

Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant submitted

evidence of its registration of the trademark CC.OO. in April 1999, in

relation to various goods. The Complainant also submitted evidence showing that

the Complainant is referred to by the name CC OO in the Spanish media and evidence

of its website maintained at <ccoo.es>. Based on this evidence and the

assertions of the Complainant, which were unchallenged by the Respondent, the

Panel finds that the trade mark CC.OO. is well known in connection with the

Complainant.

The Complainant made various

assertions in relation to the Respondent’s rights or interests in the domain

name, which are set out at paragraph 5A above. Those assertions were not challenged

by the Respondent. The Panel takes all these matters into account and, in the

absence of any response from the Respondent or any evidence to the contrary,

finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of

the domain name.

Paragraph 4a(iii):

Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has sought

to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Respondent in the registration of

the domain name as well in the use of the domain name: see Telstra Corporation

Limited v. Nuclear Mushrooms, WIPO Case

No. D2000-0003.

The grounds advanced by

the Complainant in support of its assertion that the Respondent has both registered

and used the domain name in bad faith are summarised in paragraph 5A above,

and the facts supporting these grounds are detailed in paragraph 4 above. In

particular, the Panel notes the apparent pseudonym and invented address details

used by the Respondent and accepts this as evidence relevant to the question

of bad faith: Ceyx Technologies v. Ceyx.Com, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0681; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear

Mushrooms (above).

The Panel takes all these

matters into account and, in the absence of any response from the Respondent,

finds that the Complainant has established that the domain name has been registered

and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all of the foregoing

reasons, the Panel decides that:

(i) the domain name is

identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has

rights; and

(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 by the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Panel

decides that the Complainant has proven each of the elements in paragraph 4(a)

of the Policy. The Panel therefore orders, in accordance with paragraph 4(i)

of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules that the domain name <ccoo.com>

be transferred to the Complainant.

Dr. Annabelle Bennett

SC

Sole Panelist

Dated: April 2, 2003

\