The complainant is the Commission of the Rioja Qualified Designation of Origin (Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Rioja "DOCa Rioja"). The defendant is the domain owner of rioja.com.

Under the domain riojawine.com, the complainant distributes information on the Rioja region with its different growing areas, wines, grape varieties and tourist recommendations on wineries, restaurants and hotels. It also owns various national and international trademarks, some of which have been registered since 1992.

The domain rioja.com has been registered since November 7, 1996. It was for sale in various periods.  

In the complaint, the complainant makes various arguments: The wine with the Rioja Designation of Origin can be identified by the labels and seals and is known to consumers all over the world. It is based on a study that shows how successful Rioja has been in converting brand awareness into sales in the world wine rankings. In addition, the applicant uses various symbols, international trademarks and domains associated with the indication of source. It claims that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks. It further informs that the domain owner has neither rights nor legitimate interest in this domain and that it is not aware that the domain has ever been used since its registration. She argues that the domain name was registered and used with malicious intent.

The domain owner replies as follows: First of all, the complainant uses the domain riojawine.com to advertise the wine from the Rioja region, otherwise there is no reference to the general geographical region. The applicant's trademarks are either figurative, word marks with several words or marks applied for after registration of the domain. The defendant further states that the complainant is not a producer of the goods and that a geographical indication does not per se distinguish the wine of one producer from another. Thus the basic function of a brand is not given. The geographical indication Rioja also refers to provinces in Argentina, Peru, Andalusia and Spain. Only the use is not a confusing similarity. Furthermore, the domain name is used appropriately. The defendant operates several websites and plans to develop the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the complainant only suspected malice and did not prove it. The domain was also for sale, but the defendant did not attempt to sell the domain to the complainant.

The appeal was rejected because both parties did not put forward sufficient arguments. In particular, the complainant did not provide proper evidence of the facts of the case. The detailed complaint with all arguments and the detailed decision are published at WIPO.

Trademarks are used to distinguish own goods and services from those of other companies. The better known a brand is in the market, the more important it is for the company. After all, it generates corresponding monetary sales.

Hardly anyone would have expected this complaint to be decided, least of all the complainant. In this case, she will probably be annoyed that she did not register the domain rioja.com herself. When the first figurative mark was registered in 1992, the domain seemed to have been free. In relation to the costs of the complaint procedure and the potential loss of revenue, the fees for the registration and annual operation of a.com domain are very low.

We are curious what will happen to the domain now. Is it for sale? Will it be developed as indicated? As soon as there is news, we will report about this domain again. Until then, we recommend that you review your own domain portfolio and compare it with existing trademarks.