Although the domain was parked none of the results on the landing page went to the complainant or any competitors of the complaint, rather the links on the landking page were completely unrelated to the business of the complaintant.
The domain in question was DimFusion.com
The facts are as follows:
The Complainant is a French company in business in the manufacture and supply of articles of clothing, including underwear.’
“The Complainant is the registrant of the following trademarks:
DIM, French trademark, registration number 1413016,
August 4, 1977 and renewals, class 25;
DIM (stylised), French trademark, registration number 1361813,
July 1, 1986 and renewals, classes 1 to 42;
DIM (word), United States trademark, registration number 3707865,
November 28, 2008, class 25;
“”The Complainant also claims rights in the following unregistered trademark:
DIM FUSION, in respect of underwear for men, in use since at least as early as 2006.”
The disputed domain name appears to have been registered on September 17, 2009.
“The Complainant contends that it has acquired sufficient goodwill in the unregistered trademark of Dim Fusion, that it would be clearly associated with the Complainant… In support of this contention the Complainant submits documentary evidence including a copy of its website; catalogues printed in the years from 2006 to 2010; invoices and labels.””
“”The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The incorporation of the common word “fusion” in the disputed domain name does nothing to diminish confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark DIM”
“”The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Documentary evidence is produced in order to demonstrate that the function of the disputed domain name is to offer sponsored links to other websites in categories including cosmetics, cars and education. “”
“The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark DIM. ”
“Furthermore, on the basis of the uncontested evidence produced by the Complainant as to the extent of its usage of the mark DIM FUSION over a period of some years, the Panel is satisfied that for the purpose of this proceeding the Complainant has demonstrated sufficient rights in that unregistered trademark. The Panel will proceed solely on the basis of the unregistered trademark DIM FUSION.”
“”The Panel has examined the nature and function of the Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves. According to the evidence, it may reasonably be concluded that the website of the disputed domain name exists for the purpose of referring visitors to other websites by means of hyperlinks, that is to say, a viewer who sees an advertised product or service on the Respondent’s website may click on the associated link and be transferred to the website of the advertiser. This activity is a well known revenue-generating business model, known as click-through or pay-per-click, in which at least some of the remote advertisers pay a commission to the referrer for each referral. This style of business may be entirely legitimate and is widely adopted as the means of funding or subsidising websites that offer a public or private service, such as a news or weather service or a book exchange.””
“”The pay-per-click business model may not be legitimate, however, if it is used to attract viewers, directly or through the use of search engines, by the unauthorised display of another’s trademark. In the present instance it is clear that the Respondent intends to attract visitors by portrayal of the Complainant’s trademark DIM FUSION in the disputed domain name without authority, then to confront visitors with links to advertisers.”
“Many of the offered links are in fields unrelated to the Complainant’s business, such as chemicals, vehicles or the treatment of tobacco addiction. Some are related to the Complainant’s business, such as “Lingerie pour femme”.”
“”The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name for the purpose of intending to attract visitors for commercial gain by confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the sponsorship of the Respondent’s website, constituting bad faith”
The Domain owner did not file a response.
However the trademark of the term ‘DIM” for me is troublesome to start.
Any one ever hear of “Dim Sum”
The domain Dim.com only forwards to another website, can a panel find that simply forwarding a domain to another site, rather than to a parked page be bad faith as well, as someone is just taking advantage of that well known brand none of us have ever heard of DIM?