Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2015-1514

Volkswagen.forsale

CancellationWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered cancellation of <volkswagen.forsale>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered and well-known VOLKSWAGEN mark, found no evidence that the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that passive holding constituted bad-faith registration and use in the circumstances, including the mark's wide recognition, the Respondent's default, and the absence of any explanation for the registration.

Outcome
Cancelled
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Cancellation
Decision date
2015-10-18
Panelist(s)
Osborne, Dawn
Complainant
Volkswagen AG
Respondent
Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Edwin Davidson
Counsel
Wspólnicy” Spólka Komandytowa · “Drzewiecki, Tomaszek
Disputed domain(s)
volkswagen.forsale
Citation weightCited by 1 later decision · relies on 1 authority
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind volkswagen.forsale

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 volkswagen.forsale — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered cancellation of volkswagen.forsale.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

This decision illustrates application of the UDRP passive-holding doctrine to an exact reproduction of a widely known mark under a descriptive new gTLD. Inactivity did not prevent a bad-faith finding because the Panel considered the mark's recognition, the absence of any apparent legitimate basis for the registration, and the Respondent's failure to provide an explanation.

The three-part test
Identical or Confusingly SimilarMet
Rights or Legitimate InterestsMet
Registered and Used in Bad FaithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Cancellation
Decision date
2015-10-18
Panel
Osborne, Dawn
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Volkswagen AG v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Edwin Davidson Case No. D2015-1514 1. The Parties The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Drzewiecki, Tomaszek & Wspólnicy Spólka Komandytowa, Poland. The Respondent is Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, United States of America ("United States") / Edwin Davidson of Nixa, Missouri, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <volkswagen.forsale> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Name.com LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 25, 2015. On August 25, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 25, 2015, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 1, 2015 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 September 2, 2015. 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 September 3, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 2015. 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 was founded in 1937 and is one of the world's leading car manufacturers. The VOLKSWAGEN mark is registered in the United States and the European Community, the first in time registration in the United States going back to 1955. The Domain Name was registered on May 3, 2015 and is inactive. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant was founded in 1937 and is one of the world's leading car manufacturers. The VOLKSWAGEN mark is registered in the United States and the European Community, the first in time registration in the United States going back to 1955 and is exclusively associated with the Complainant. The Complainant is the registrant of a large number of domain names containing the VOLKSWAGEN mark including <volkswagen.com>. The Domain Name incorporates the famous VOLKSWAGEN mark in its entirety. It was registered and is being used in bad faith. Currently there is no active website at the Domain Name. The addition of the ".forsale" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") which is descriptive and simply emphasizes the trade mark element of the name does not diminish the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade marks. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trade marks or any variation thereof. The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to create the misleading impression of being in some way associated with the Complainant which is not the case. There is no legitimate reason for registering the Domain Name and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent who did not respond. The VOLKSWAGEN mark is internationally famous. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to misleadingly divert consumers to the website at the Domain Name causing confusion amongst consumers by creating the impression of association with the Complainant and disrupting the Complainant's business. Passive holding of a Domain Name can be an indication of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's well known mark VOLKSWAGEN and the gTLD ".forsale". "forsale" is a new gTLD of general application and has no particular distinctive meaning of its own. Further, gTLDs with generic meaning gTLDs are usually not taken into account for the purposes of determining confusing similarity under the Policy. As such the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VOLKSWAGEN registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy with respect to the Domain Name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent does not appear to have any trade marks associated with the name "Volkswagen". There is no evidence that he is commonly known by this name and he does not have any consent from the Complainant to use this name. He does not appear to have used the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services of his own. The Domain Name is inactive. Further, the Respondent did not respond to this Complaint and does not explain why he has registered the Domain Name. Given the famous nature of the Complainant's mark it would indicate to most Internet users and members of the public an association with the Complainant. The Respondent does not deny any knowledge of the Complainant and its rights or provide any evidence of intended legitimate use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Section 4(b) of the Policy sets out various criteria which are evidence of registration and use in bad faith which are non exclusive. However, UDRP panels have historically found that there can be a finding of registration and use in bad faith where there is passive use of a widely known trade mark in a domain name where there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be in good faith. See the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 . The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not explained why he would be entitled to register a domain name consisting of the Complainant's widely known trade mark and a gTLD of generic application. As such the Panel finds on the balance of probability that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. 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 Domain Name <volkswagen.forsale> be cancelled. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: October 18, 2015

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around volkswagen.forsale

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
116,051 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

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.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore 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.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.