Multiple Respondents: Gucci gewinnt UDRP-Verfahren um 128 Gucci-Domains gegen eine Vielzahl von Domaininhaber

Die Inhaberin der Rechte an den GUCCI-Marken, Guccio Gucci S.p.A, ist im Wege des UDRP-Verfahrens gegen eine Vielzahl von Domaininhabern vorgegangen und hat die Übertragung sämtlicher streitgegenständlicher Domainnamen erwirkt (Guccio Gucci S.p.A v. Andrea Hubner, Beijing Harmony Software Co.Ltd., jiang wang, brian miller, Pornsawang Chotima, Domain Whois Protection Service, Whois Agent, Jie Zhou, Jayzhou, Hi to every day in Zhengzhou Medical Devices Co., Ltd., tian jin hua jin you xian gong si, lihong jay, hu, lizhu hu, da tou, Tamia Liu, Wang Jie, Yijiwangluo, WIPO Case No. D2012-2212).

Interessant an dieser Entscheidung ist vor allem, dass das Schiedsgericht die Inanspruchnahme von einer Vielzahl von Domaininhabern in einem Verfahren zugelassen hat (sog. „muliple Respondents“). Üblicherweise kann ein UDRP-Verfahren nur gegen eine Person geführt werden. Ausnahmsweise werden jedoch auch Beschwerden gegen mehrere Beschwerdegegner zugelassen, wenn es der Verfahrensökonomie dient (dies dürfte wohl in den meisten Fällen gegeben sein), die Domainnamen oder Webseiten, die unter den Domainnamen abrufbar gehalten werden, unter gemeinsamer Kontrolle stehen und die Zusammenlegung keine der Parteien benachteiligt.

Im vorliegenden Fall ging das Schiedsgericht davon aus, dass diese Voraussetzungen vorliegen:

UDRP jurisprudence suggests consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, even where differently named domain name registrants are involved, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names or the websites to which the domain names resolve (Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No. D2010-0281).

The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence in support of its submissions that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, including a spreadsheet listing the common factors linking the disputed domain names.

The arguments relied upon by the Complainant in support of its consolidation request include:

(1) The use of common registration information such as administrative contact details, technical contact details, postal addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, and telephone and fax numbers;

(2) The use of the same or similar names in the registration information;

(3) Resolving disputed domain names to the same or similar Websites;

(4) Using the same domain name servers;

(5) Using the same registrars; and

(6) Close similarity between the disputed domain names, each of which incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety in conjunction with non-distinctive, generic or geographical terms.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are under the control of a single individual or entity, or, at least, are under the control of a group of individuals acting in concert.

[…]

The Respondent did not file a Response and did not file any submissions with respect to consolidation of the Respondents.

In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes sufficient evidence has been adduced to enable the conclusion to be drawn that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names.

In all the circumstances, the Panel determines, under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, that consolidation of the Respondents is procedurally efficient and equitable to all the parties, is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and comports with prior relevant UDRP decisions in respect of this issue.