The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) with case number D2018-0381 was processed by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) according to the specifications.

The complainant is Dr. lng. h.c. F. Porsche AG with its registered office in Stuttgart. It is known for its sports cars and also produces related goods. To this end, it owns numerous brands worldwide for the name "Porsche" and a number of domains, including porsche.com, which are used for marketing purposes. On February 20, 2018, she filed her complaint to the domain porsche.website with the WIPO. The respondent is a private individual.

The disputed domain porsche.website was registered on January 2, 2016. The evidence attached to the complaint indicates that the domain was parked and for sale. At the time of the complaint, a website was deposited with the information "website coming soon".

After successful examination of the formal requirements, both sides were able to present their arguments as to why they are entitled to the domain porsche.website.

The complainant indicated the following points: the domain name embodies the brand "Porsche" completely and identically. The new top-level domain (TLD) .website contributes to the confusion, as the visitor to the website might think that this website is an official page of the complainant. The respondent had neither a business relationship with the complainant nor was he generally known under this domain name. Furthermore the non-use of the domain name proves a missing justified interest since one year. The domain was for sale immediately after registration, four months later revenues were generated by click rates to a price comparison website. In 2017 the domain was for sale again for 9.999.999,- Euro. The defendant provided this information via a message on the complainant's career pages on Facebook. The defendant had maliciously registered the domain and continues to use it to achieve a high added value far above the registration fees. The message on Facebook suggests that the complainant is known to her opponent.

The defendant argued, inter alia, as follows: the domain name is not a car, but a generic name. The complainant is an automobile company, but not an Internet company. In view of her current diesel scandal, a decision of goodwill for the complainant is not advisable. Furthermore, he had not registered the domain in bad faith, but for his daughter, who is called "Porsche". If the complainant wishes to own the domain, she must therefore pay for it - just as someone has to pay for a Porsche car.

For a successful complaint, the complainant must prove the following facts:

• The domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark.
• The respondent has no rights or no legitimate reference to the domain.
• And the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

All points could be substantiated by the complainant. Especially due to the lack of a birth certificate as proof and the greatly inflated claims far exceeding the usual expenses for the registration and administration of this domain, the member of the arbitration court has come to the decision that the domain is to be transferred to the complainant.

This has now been done, the disputed domain is forwarded to www.porsche.com, where the complainant maintains her website. Details of the complaint can be found on the WIPO website.

Unfortunately, the documentation does not show what happened in the two years between registration (2016) and filing of the complaint (2018) and whether both parties have had contact here. Probably the complainant will not have registered her trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse - a centralised database for extended trademark protection during the introduction of the new TLDs such as .website. Then she would already have received the corresponding information about the registration of the domain. But perhaps she has it, in order to closely observe the contentious domain in the two years, to collect evidence and ultimately, as a world-renowned sports car manufacturer, not to let a free rider drop everything at any price.

The complainant could have registered the corresponding domain under all permissible TLDs as a precautionary measure to protect her trademark "Porsche". With an estimated 2,000 TLDs, the fees for registration and annual operation should not be underestimated. This makes it all the more important, of course, to define precisely which domains should be registered, which are to be observed and how the strategy for foreign governments should be implemented.