Justice prevails in Volo auto museum vs Volvo cars domain dispute

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0306.html

WIPO clearly thought that Volvo had no case at all:

"Clearly, there must be a risk of confusion arising out of
typographical errors, and such errors are plainly at the heart of the
instances revealed by the Yahoo search conducted by the Complainant
[Volvo]. But, to rely on this single search in support of the
assertion "Instances of confusion are rampant" is going too far.

Also unhelpful is the Complainant's reliance on other WIPO decisions,
each one of which depended on its own facts, and in each of which the
Trademark itself featured in the domain name at issue.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent [Volo Auto Museum] has rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name, falling within the
circumstances of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. <snip> Clearly, the
Respondent has acquired "rights" in the name VOLOCARS as a result of
its trading activities (regardless of the Complainant's rights in the
Trademark, the Respondent could restrain others, in appropriate
circumstances, from trading under the name VOLOCARS).

Here, the Respondent has placed before the Panel ample evidence that
it has acted in good faith. Its business in antique and classic cars
does not, in the Panel's opinion, stand to benefit in any way from
association with the Complainant. It is equally clear that the
Respondent has not been motivated by any desire to damage the
Complainant."

 

It's nice to see there's at least a little bit of sense somewhere in the
legal system! Way to build goodwill Volvo!