Toevoeging van een koppelteken
WIPO Arbitration 26 december 2011, D2011-2029 (inzake akzo-nobel.com; geschillenbeslechter: Philippe Gilliéron)
Merkenrecht. Domeinnaam. Eiser is Akzo Nobel, houdster van internationale merken AKZO NOBEL (woord / beeld) en is actief op het gebied van verf en coatings. Door de toevoeging van een koppelteken (hyphen) aan de .com-domeinnaam wordt niet voldoend afstand gecreëerd met het merk van eiser.
Gedaagde heeft geen recht of legitiem belang (geen reactie van gedaagde). Gezien de wereldwijde reputatie van eiser, is het moeilijk te geloven dat de domeinnaam te goeder trouw is geregistreerd. De gedaagde is al in 19 UDRP-beslissingen rondom merknamen van derde-partijen verwikkeld geraakt. Alles bij elkaar genomen moet de gedaagde de gevolgen daarvan dragen en wordt de overdracht bevolen.
Onder A. As many panels have ruled before, the addition of a hyphen between two words does obviously not make a sufficient difference between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark to exclude the likelihood of confusion resulting from such incorporation (see, e.g., Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc v. Hammerstone, WIPO Case No. D2003-0903; Fort Knox National Company v. Ekaterina Phillipova, WIPO Case No. D2004-0281).
Onder C. Considering the worldwide reputation of AKZO NOBEL in the abovementioned industry, the Panel finds it hard to believe that the Respondent would have chosen and registered the disputed domain name
<akzo-nobel.com> in good faith, without having been aware of the AKZO NOBEL trademarks. The Respondent having neglected to proceed, did not bring any convincing evidence to support such a choice; such evidence does not result from the file, and the Respondent has to bear the consequences of its default on that regard.
Respondent’s good faith is all the more doubtful that a search of UDRP decisions reveals no less than 19 decisions rendered against the Respondent covering a broad range of domain names consisting of third parties’ trademarks, which clearly suggest that the Respondent has made a pattern of conduct of registering domain names consisting of third parties’ trademarks.
The Panel far more believes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion and leading Internet users to believe that Respondent’s website is linked to the Complainant.
