Westmore · UDRP DecisionPorsche-dongying.com + 3 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of four domain names combining the registered PORSCHE trademark with the names of cities in Shandong Province, China. It found confusing similarity because geographic additions did not distinguish the domains, no rights or legitimate interests because the Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case, and bad-faith registration and use because the domains resolved to sponsored-link parking pages and their registration prevented the Complainant or its authorized dealers from using corresponding geographic domain names.
The timeline behind porsche-dongying.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind porsche-dongying.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates how a coordinated set of trademark-plus-city domain names can support transfer where the trademark is fully incorporated, the additions are merely geographic, the domains monetize confusion through sponsored links, and the registrations interfere with an established geographic naming convention used by authorized dealers.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Wang Yuming Case No. D2013-2141 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG of Stuttgart, Germany, represented by Lichtenstein, Körner & Partners, Germany. The Respondent is Wang Yuming of Yantai, Shandong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche-jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> And <porsche-zibo.com> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 13, 2013, 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. On December 16, 2013, the Center transmitted the Complaint Deficiency Notification by email to the Complainant. On the same day, the Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint in response to the Complaint Deficiency Notification. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2013. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on December 17, 18, 19, 2013 and January 10, 2014 respectively. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 7, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of the commencement of the panel appointment process on January 8, 2014. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2014. 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 is a manufacturer of cars sold under the trademark PORSCHE. It owns numerous registrations for the trademark PORSCHE in class 12 including International Registration No. 562572 in China. The Complainant distributes its cars through official dealers. Official dealers are authorized to register domain names made up of PORSCHE and the dealer’s geographic location. Examples in China include: <porsche-beijing-central.com> <porsche-dalian.com> <porsche-dongguan.com> The Respondent registered the disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche‑jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> on August 24, 2013 Dongying, Jining, Weihai and Zibo are all cities in Shandong Province of China. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark PORSCHE. Only geographic descriptions have been added to the trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; that there is no relationship between the parties; and that the Respondent is making commercial use of the disputed domain names by re-directing them to parking pages. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademark in the corresponding domain name (contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy and to attract Internet users to the parking pages (contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply substantively to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent did send three emails to the Center in response to the Complaint; one in Chinese and English and two in Chinese. The Respondent essentially said that it could not understand the professional English used in the Complaint and would leave it to the Panel to decide the case justly. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche-jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> are all made up of the registered trademark PORSCHE plus the names of four cities in China. According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)). The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark PORSCHE. The Panel finds that the first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not formally responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case. The Panel finds the second part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith. This case, where the disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with sponsored links, clearly falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” In addition, the registration of four domain names comprised of the trademark PORSCHE together with geographical place names will prevent the Complainant (or its authorized dealers) from reflecting the trademark in corresponding domain names contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 names <porsche-dongying.com>, <porsche-jining.com>, <porsche-weihai.com> and <porsche-zibo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: January 17, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around porsche-dongying.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.