WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Adam Szulewski, stress8 Adam Szulewski Case No. D2019-1058 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Germany, represented by Kelly IP, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Adam Szulewski, stress8 Adam Szulewski, Poland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 8, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 9, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 14, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 15, 2019.

The Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is in Polish, whereas the Complaint was submitted in English. On May 14, 2019, the Center sent the Parties a language of proceedings email in which they were invited to substantiate their arguments on the language of proceedings. The Complainant replied to this request on May 15, 2019, arguing in favor of English being the language of proceedings. The Respondent did not respond to the latter email, however on the same day, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent on its request for settlement. Accordingly, the Center sent the Parties a possible settlement email on May 15, 2019. The Complainant did not request suspension of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on June 21, 2019, the Center notified the Parties that it will proceed to panel appointment.

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international manufacturer of automobiles and motorcycles. It offers navigation software and systems under the BMW mark for its BMW automobiles, including navigation software updates and activation codes for such updates also known as FSC codes, through its authorized dealers and on its “” website, among other official channels.

The Complainant has produced extensive evidence of its trademark rights, including the German registration No. 221388 for the mark BMW, registered on December 10, 1917, covering products in International Classes 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, including automobiles and related parts and accessories. The Complainant’s trademark registrations for its BMW mark that cover navigation software and systems include the European Union Trade Mark registration No. 014015143 (registered on November 23, 2015, covering products in international classes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45).

Moreover, the Complainant owns the domain names and which serve for the purpose of official websites.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 15, 2016.

The website that the disputed domain name resolved to offers unauthorized versions of the navigation software and activation/FSC codes under the BMW mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BMW mark. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name contains the BMW in its entirety and on its face, the disputed domain name immediately communicates a connection to the Complainant that does not exist. Moreover, the Complainant asserts the additional terms “navigation” and “update” enhance this connection as the Complainant offers navigation software and updates for its software, and has done so for many years.

Secondly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Complainant has not authorized the R