Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2017-0111 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, March 13, 2017 (case Riemann Trading ApS v. Riemann, Michael)
| Resolution Date | March 13, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
The Complainant is Riemann Trading ApS of Hillerød, Denmark, represented by BrandIT GmbH, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Riemann, Michael of Madrid, Spain, represented by Huber & Steinbacher, Germany.
The disputed domain name [riemann.net] is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 20, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2017, 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.
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”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 27, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 16, 2017. The Response was filed with the Center on February 13, 2017.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 2017. 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.
On February 27, 2017, at the request of the Panel, the Center issued Procedural Order No. 1 to the Parties, reproduced below:
“Under paragraph 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), the Panel may, at its sole discretion, request further statements or documents from either of the Parties.
Having reviewed the case file, the Panel notes that the Respondent claims to have registered the disputed domain name in 1998/9 because Riemann is the Respondent’s surname. The Panel also notes that, while the Respondent seeks to defend the administrative proceeding in section 6B of the Response, the Respondent appears to have consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant in section 6C of the Response. Finally, the Panel notes that while the Respondent has nominated legal representatives within the Response, the Respondent appears to have completed the Response personally without the assistance of legal representation.
Taking the above into account, and in exercise of its powers under paragraph 12 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Respondent to provide (1) documentary evidence supporting the Respondent’s claim to be the original registrant of the disputed domain name in 1998/9, such as confirmation to that effect from the Registrar, copy emails sent or received using the disputed domain name at or close to the claimed registration date or configuration instructions from a similar date given to those operating the Respondent’s mail server; (2) documentary evidence from at least two independent sources supporting the Respondent’s claim that Riemann is the Respondent’s surname, such as a passport, driver’s license, official citizen identity card or birth certificate; and (3) confirmation as to whether the Respondent does or does not consent to the remedy sought by the Complainant in the administrative proceeding, namely transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Any communication or submission as the result of this Panel Order shall be forwarded to the Center at domain.disputes@wipo.int by no later than March 4, 2017.
The Complainant may submit any relevant comment by no later than March 9, 2017.
The Panel extends the decision due date to March 16, 2017.”
The Respondent did not file any response to Procedural Order No. 1. The Complainant filed comments and relative annexes on March 9, 2017 which will be discussed in section 6A below.
The Complainant was founded in Denmark in 1979 by Claus Riemann and currently focuses upon two niche brands, an antiperspirant sold under the brand “Perspirex”, and a sunscreen sold under the brand “P20”. The Complainant sells its products in over 30 markets worldwide including in Spain where the Respondent is located. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trademarks worldwide including European Union trademark no. 227835 for the word mark RIEMANN filed on April 1, 1996 and registered on May 13, 1998 in international classes 1, 3 and 5. The Complainant has registered a number of domain names containing its RIEMANN mark including [riemann.dk], registered on February 28, 1997; [riemann.com], registered on March 7, 1997; and [riemann.biz], registered on January 20, 2004.
The disputed domain name was created on June 15, 1999. According to a screenshot dated February 8, 2006 produced by the Complainant, the website associated with the disputed domain name featured pay‑per-click advertising (“PPC”) which also displayed the Registrar’s banner and featured a “Coming Soon” message. The Complainant produced similar screenshots dated January 19, 2008, March 6, 2009 and May 17, 2014. All of the screenshots from 2006 to 2014 contain a link to the Complainant’s “P20” product and/or the Complainant’s RIEMANN mark. The Complainant also produced a screenshot from October 31, 2016 which was lacking the Registrar’s branding, though the screenshot appears to be incomplete...
To continue reading
Request your trial