Westmore · UDRP DecisionAstonmartin-uk.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <astonmartin-uk.com>. Although Respondent consented to the requested relief, the Panel separately found that the domain was confusingly similar to the ASTON MARTIN mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith. The bad-faith finding relied principally on the globally famous mark and the domain's use to redirect users to a fraudulent website imitating a legitimate financial website.
The timeline behind astonmartin-uk.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates that a panel may enter substantive findings on all three UDRP elements even where the respondent consents to transfer. It also shows the strong evidentiary significance of using a domain incorporating a famous mark to redirect users to a fraudulent imitation website, particularly when the respondent offers no supported explanation.
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 Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Christian Karam, forexacademy Case No. D2017-2270 1. The Parties Complainant is Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kindgom”), represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America / Christian Karam, forexacademy of Mansourieh, Lebanon, represented by Ghanem Law Firm, Lebanon. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <astonmartin-uk.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 16, 2017, 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 Complainant on December 1, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 13, 2017. Respondent sent two email communications to the Center on December 7, 2017. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 23, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on January 22, 2018. The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2018. 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 Complainant uses the mark ASTON MARTIN for automobiles and is famous world-wide for the quality of its cars and for its iconic association with James Bond. Complaint owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the mark ASTON MARTIN, such as European Union Trademark No. 008367815 ASTON MARTIN, registered on March 16, 2010. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 23, 2017. Complainant has shown that Respondent used the disputed domain name to redirect to the website “www.cfiinvest-binary.com”. Complainant has also shown that the target redirect website is an unauthorized imitation of a legitimate website operated by Credit Financier Invest at <cfifinancial.com>. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous trademark, that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As relief, Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name. B. Respondent Respondent generally denies Complainant’s contentions, but has provided no material facts or support for its denial. In addition, Respondent consents in the Response to the relief sought by Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings Because Respondent consents to the relief sought by Complainant, there is little need for a lengthy review of the facts and evidence. However, upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Panel will enter the following findings in favor of Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <astonmartin-uk.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASTON MARTIN trademark. The addition of “uk.com” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has shown a prima facie case for a finding that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not presented any material facts or support to counter Complainant’s showing and none appear in the record. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has shown that the ASTON MARTIN trademark is widely known and famous on a global basis and is the subject of numerous trademark registrations worldwide. Complainant has also presented evidence to show that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to a fraudulent website. Respondent again has provided no material facts or support for its general denial of this claim. The Panel can find no plausible good faith justification for Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in the manner shown by the submissions. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, and with consent of Respondent, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <astonmartin-uk.com> be transferred to Complainant. Mark Partridge Sole Panelist Date: March 7, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around astonmartin-uk.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.