"... the decisions of the panels in Société des Products Nestlé SA v. Stuart Cook, WIPO Case No. D2002-0118 and Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148 that a domain name consisting exclusively of the trade mark of a Complainant and the trade mark of a subsidiary of that Complainant is prima facie identical or confusingly similar."

"[it] is for the Complainant to establish, at least a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).

However, in this case the only conceivable legitimate interest that the Respondent could have in the use of the domain name would be if it were using the domain name to advertise the availability of bona fide Volkswagen and Audi products sold under the Complainant’s marks. The Complainant concedes that some of the links contained on the Respondent’s websites are to sites selling bona fide Audi products. The conditions upon which use to promote the resale of a Complainant’s products gives rise to a legitimate interest in the domain name have been strictly defined by the panels in decisions such as Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0095. Few if any of the conditions described in those decisions have been met by the Respondent in this case. Moreover, those decisions dealt only with the situation in which the use was by the reseller itself and not by a third party operating a ‘click-through’ or portal site."

"The apparent purpose of the Respondent’s use of the disputed name is to divert traffic to its site, and from there to the third party sites to which it is linked. Panel decisions such as L’Oréal, Biotherm, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Unasi Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0623 and F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Register in hostingfreeweb.com, WIPO Case No. D2007-0391, establish that the use of a Complainant’s mark to operate a ‘click-through’ or portal site for profit is a classic example of bad faith. Given the reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark, and noting also that the Respondent has made no apparent attempt to contact the Complainant or answer the Complaint, it is difficult to interpret the Complainant’s use of the disputed name other than as an attempt to profit by the deliberate diversion of Internet users."