UDRP: General Motors gewinnt Verfahren um myGM.com und verliert Verfahren um myCadillac.com

General Motors LLC ging Ende letzten Jahres zeitgleich im Wege des UDRP-Verfahrens gegen zwei Domainregistrierungen vor: „myGM.com“ (General Motors LLC v. Carol Schadt, WIPO Case No. D2012-2106) und „myCadillac.com“ (General Motors LLC v. Chad Clegg, WIPO Case No. D2012-2196).

Im Verfahren um „myGM.com“ entschied das Schiedsgericht für die Beschwerdeführerin und ordnete die Übertragung des Domainnamens an. Es kam zu der Überzeugung, dass der Domainname mit den GM-Marken der Beschwerdeführerin verwechslungsfähig ähnlich im Sinne des § 4(a)(i) der UDRP sei, dass die Beschwerdegegnerin, die den Domainnamen seit über 8 Jahren nicht genutzt hatte, keine Rechte oder berechtigte Interessen an dem Domainnamen im Sinne der §§ 4(a)(ii) i.V.m. 4(c) der UDRP habe und dass der Domainname im Sinne der §§ 4(a)(iii) i.V.m. 4(b) der UDRP bösgläubig registriert und benutzt wurde. Hinsichtlich der bösgläubigen Nutzung ging das Schiedsgericht von sog. „passive holding“ aus, einer Fallgruppe, in der Nichtnutzung einer aktiven Nutzung gleichgestellt wird (die Voraussetzungen werden im Beitrag UDRP: Nichtnutzung eines Domainnamens automatisch bösgläubig? erläutert).

Der Fall um „myCadillac.com“ lag anders. Der Beschwerdegegner nutzte den Domainnamen in Verbindung mit einer Parking-Webseite mit Werbelinks zu Michigan und berief sich darauf, er habe den Domainnamen wegen seines Bezugs zur Gründerin von Detroit, Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, sowie der Stadt Cadillac, Michigan, registriert. Er habe den Domainnamen auch nicht in einer Weise genutzt, die die Rechte der Beschwerdegegnerin beeinträchtigt hätten. Das Schiedsgericht bejahte zunächst ebenfalls die verwechslungsfähige Ähnlichkeit zwischen dem Domainnamen und den Marken der Beschwerdeführerin, wies die Beschwerde jedoch zurück, weil nicht nachgewiesen sei, dass der Domainname bösgläubig registriert und benutzt wurde:

„[…] Given the long and far-reaching use of the CADILLAC Trademark, the Panel is not so naïve as to think that Respondent was unaware of the trademark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name, standing alone, could be considered by many to be anything other than associated with Complainant. However, there is nothing in the record to contradict Respondent’s assertions that he registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name solely because of its connection with the personal and geographic name “Cadillac” and not because of Complainant’s use of the word as a trademark.

It may be that by using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website that contains links to Michigan, home state of the city of Cadillac, Respondent has merely attempted to disguise his intention in registering the Disputed Domain Name – much as the early cybersquatter Dennis Toeppen displayed photographs of the city of Pana, Illinois, on a website using the domain name <panavision.com>. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998). However, in the Panavision case, the defendant’s actions and convoluted explanation were clearly a pretext for his actual motive, given that the disputed domain name was not only identical to the plaintiff’s trademark but not actually the name of the city depicted on the website and, as the court said, the defendant’s “’business’ is to register trademarks as domain names and then sell them to the rightful trademark owners” – something that Complainant in this case has not proven.

In any event, it would appear as if Respondent has taken precautions to avoid using the Disputed Domain Name in any manner that might cause a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Such actions eliminate any finding of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iv).

Further, although Respondent has offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name, for as much as $56,665.00 – a figure that presumably is “valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name” – the record does not indicate that Respondent’s “primary” purpose in registering the Disputed Domain Name was to sell it to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant. Indeed, Respondent has provided an uncontradicted explanation related to his registration of the Disputed Domain Name, that is, that it is related to the personal and geographic names associated with the word “Cadillac,” not Complainant’s trademark. As this Panel wrote in a previous decision, Google Inc. v. Blue Arctic LLC, NAF Claim No. 1447355:

Despite the Panel’s extreme suspicions about this explanation, the Policy and the Rules do not provide the Panel with any authority to ascertain the Respondent’s credibility given the limitations on filings, the absence of discovery and the procedural efficiencies that are a part of (although admittedly occasionally detrimental to) this process. […]

In light of these concerns, this Panel notes that “[i]t may be that Complainant could develop evidence of bad faith and lack of legitimate interest in a legal proceeding that would allow more evidentiary development. The Policy, however, was not designed to transfer domain names in every case that a trademark owner might ultimately win.” Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. Compana LLC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0105 (April 30, 2002).“