NOMINET UK DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE
DRS 2317
The Colt Car Company Ltd –v- Ligang Sup
Decision of Independent Expert

1.	Parties: 

Complainant:		The Colt Car Company Ltd. 
Country:		GB

Respondent:		Ligang Sup
Country:		Singapore

2.	Domain Name:

coltcars.co.uk 

3.	Procedural Background:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 20 January 2005.  Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the Complaint on 25 January 2005 and that it had to lodge a Response by 18 February 2005. No Response was filed. On 2 March 2005 the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy (“the Policy”).

On 3 March 2005, Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, (“the Expert”) confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.

4.	Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues (if any):
There are no outstanding procedural issues that arise. 

5.	The Background:

The Complainant is The Colt Car Company Limited, the UK importer and distributor of  motor vehicles supplied under the well known Mitsubishi trade mark.  The Complainant was incorporated on 21 March 1974. 

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, coltcars.co.uk, on 26 December 2004. Nothing else is known about the Respondent. The domain name resolves to a website that offers Ford Mustang motor vehicles for sale, as well as loans, insurance and other related services. The website asks users whether they wish to advertise on the site.  The copyright notice suggests that the owners of the site is a business called Domain Spa LLC.

The Complaint included evidence of email exchanges between the Complainant and Domain Spa on 5 January 2005 in which the Complainant states that it had commenced the dispute process with Nominet. In its email, Domain Spa state that they are a “Domain Parking Service”; that the owner of the domain is their client and that “…since you prefer to pay 750gbh instead of dealing with them directly and settle the matter, you do not need any help from us.”   

6.	The Parties’ Contentions:

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s registration is abusive because it is being used primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or transferring the domain name to the Complainant or to other parties who may include competitors of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of costs directly related to the domain name. The Complainant alleges that the website states that the domain name is available for purchase from the Respondent, although I was unable to verify this when accessing the site. 

The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has registered the domain name to unfairly disrupt its business on the basis that the website to which the domain name resolves advertises goods or services from alternate motor vehicle manufacturers and resellers. The Complainant points to the fact that there is no reference to Mitsubishi vehicles or the Colt Car Company Ltd on this website, and that there are links to a number of websites of the Complainant's competitors.  The Complainant says that by doing so the Respondent provides these competitors with business opportunities that they would not otherwise have had. 

The Complainant also alleges that there are additional grounds of disruption on the basis that DNS resolution issues are causing connection problems for some external users trying to connect to the Complainant’s corporate network.  

7.	Discussion and Findings:

Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that for the Complainant to succeed it has to prove to the Expert on a balance of probabilities, that it has rights (which are not confined to those that are enforceable under English law) in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the domain name and that the domain name in the hands of the Respondent is an abusive registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).

Complainant’s Rights

The Complainant has rights in the name “Colt Cars” as a result of its Companies House registration and trade in motor vehicles under the Colt Company Limited name. I find that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark that is identical to the domain name. 

Abusive Registration
The Complainant also has to show that the domain name is an abusive registration. Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines this as a domain name which either: 
i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; OR 
ii. has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights." 
A non-exhaustive list of factors, which may be evidence of an abusive registration, are set out in paragraph 3a of the Policy. However, these are only examples of conduct, which may be evidence that a domain name is an abusive registration. 
The potentially relevant factors in this Complaint are contained in subparagraphs 3 a i A and C that is: 
3 a i Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the Domain Name: 
A.	for the purposes of selling…..the Domain Name to the Complainant… for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented …costs directly associated with…using the Domain Name 
B.	C. primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant; 
The Respondent has not filed a Response.  This makes the Complainant’s task of establishing an abusive registration easier, though it is still necessary to establish such abusive conduct on a balance of probabilities. 
There is insufficient evidence in my view that would justify a finding that 3 a i A. above is satisfied.
In the absence of a Response, the Complainant’s evidence and submissions establish on a balance of probabilities the following facts and matters:
1	That the Complainant has been engaged in the business of importing and distributing motor vehicles for a number of years.
2	That the Complainant’s business predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
3	That the Respondent has used or authorised to be used the domain name in issue for the purposes of offering goods and services that have no connection with Colt Cars Limited or Mitsubishi and which advertise and promote the vehicles of rival manufacturers and resellers.

Based on the above, and in the absence of a Response, in my view the Respondent has used the disputed domain name primarily for the purposes of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant. Internet users in the UK searching for information about the Complainant and its products are likely to be taken, unfairly, to the Respondent’s site. What is more, they are being offered the rival goods and services of another. It appears highly likely that the Respondent has deliberately registered and used the disputed domain to target the Complainant’s actual and potential customers.

In my view, the disputed domain name has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's rights. Accordingly, I find that the domain name is an abusive registration.

8.	Decision:

In the light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical to the domain name and that the domain name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration, I direct that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

Cerryg Jones                                                                 23 March 2005