Westmore · UDRP DecisionDimasport.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <dimasport.com>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s registered DIMASPORT mark, held that the unrebutted evidence established the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that registration for resale at EUR 2,800 and subsequent passive holding constituted bad-faith registration and use in the circumstances.
The timeline behind dimasport.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 dimasport.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates an exact-match, apparently coined-mark dispute in which longstanding trademark rights, an express marketplace sale offer, respondent default, and later passive holding combined to satisfy all three UDRP elements. The Panel treated the change from an active sale listing to passive holding as immaterial to bad faith in the overall circumstances.
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 Dimasport v. Park Kyoung Suk Case No. D2018-1466 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dimasport of Ozoir-la-Ferrière, France, represented by AtlantIP, France. The Respondent is Park kyoung Suk of Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dimasport.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2018. On July 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3 and 9, 2018, 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 July 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2018. The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 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 The Complainant, Dimasport, is a company active in Europe as one of the European leaders in the field of gymnastics and sport equipment since 1967. The Complainant sells for more than 50 years a large range of sport materials, both professional and individual both in shops and online. Dimasport is the official provider of different national and international sport authorities and events. The Complainant’s trademark DIMASPORT is registered in several countries, including in France since 1985 (French Trademark Registration No. 1315321) and is also object of an international trademark registration as of 1997 (International Trademark Registration No. 674922). A sample proof of these registrations was attached to the Complaint as Annex 8. The Complainant also holds a several domain names registered throughout the world, all formed by the mark DIMASPORT, with special attention to the domain name <dimasport.fr>, registered on February 18, 1997, as provided at Annex 9 to the Complaint. The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2010. The disputed domain name used to resolve to a parking page provided by a domain name selling platform (Sedo), but currently it does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the mark DIMASPORT, which is in use since as early as 1967. All registrations were granted before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which reproduces the trademark DIMASPORT. As stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademark DIMASPORT predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name was directed to a parking website, where it was offered for sale, as provided at Annexes 3 and 10 to the Complaint. The disputed domain name was later suppressed from the selling list but remained parked in the Sedo, as demonstrated by Annex 11. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and registered and is using it in bad faith. The Respondent does not own a trademark registration or a pending application concerning the expression “dimasport”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <dimasport.com> is, indeed, identical to the DIMASPORT trademark, as the latter is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name, with no change or alteration. The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark DIMASPORT in jurisdictions throughout the world, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark. Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is clear evidence that the trademark DIMASPORT is registered in the Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities. Besides, the mark DIMASPORT does not consist of a word known in any language, being apparently created by the Complainant. Further, it is clear that the Complainant has not licensed this trademark to the Respondent. Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case. It has also been shown that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website and that it previously resolved to a website with the message: “Buy this domain. The domain dimasport.com may be for sale by its owner”, being the disputed domain name offered for EUR 2.800,00 on the platform Sedo. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does serve to rebut the prima facie case made out by the Complainant. The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the circumstances of this case, the facts outlined in sections A and B above can evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Given that the registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark DIMASPORT predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. In addition, in view of the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel also finds that the disputed domain name was registered clearly to be offered for sale for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. Further, the current passive holding of the disputed domain name in this context does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element of the Policy. 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 name <dimasport.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira Sole Panelist Date: August 17, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around dimasport.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.