WIPO-selectie augustus 2012
Domeinnaamrecht. We beperken ons tot een doorlopende selectie van WIPO-geschillenbeslechtingsprocedures die wellicht interessant zijn. Hier een overzicht van de in de laatste weken gepubliceerde procedures. Ditmaal over: een verlopen registratie die te koop wordt aangeboden (niet per se bad faith), legitiem belang als men opteert voor een nieuwe gTLD, handelsnaam mét USA erachter voor de Amerikaanse markt (niet overgedragen), opdracht tot het online promoten van een productlijn van eiser (geen overdracht), een onvoldoende gericht marktonderzoek om recht vast te stellen (geen overdracht), bekritiserende websites over een persoon en een bank (geen overdracht) en het doorlinken van .nl-domeinnaam na eindigen van de reseller-relatie naar concurrende producten leidt wel tot overdracht. De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie juli 2012 of via dossier domeinnaamrecht (linkerkolom).
De selectie is (deels) samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
D2012-1246 risingstar.com > Complaint denied 
Ongelukkige situatie. Eiser heeft sinds 2007 de merkrechten op Rising Star, bestaat al onder die naam sinds 2001. In 2006 een derde (G.S.) opdracht gegeven om de domeinnaam risingstar.com te kopen voor 5.000 dollar. G.S. laat de registratie verlopen en de domeinnaam komt weer vrij beschikbaar. Momenteel staat er een website op die verwijst naar online casino’s en werd de domeinnaam actief te koop aangeboden via een veiling. De geschilbeslechter oordeelt dat er een eigen recht en/of legitiem belang aanwezig is en dat er geen sprake van kwader trouw is. Eiser heeft o.a. onvoldoende bewezen dat de verweerder de domeinnaam heeft gekocht en thans te koop aanbiedt met eiser in het achterhoofd.
“As far as the contention of the Complainant goes, that the additional offering of the disputed domain name by the Respondent for sale indicates a non-legitimate use, the Panel shares the opinion of the Respondent that the offering of a domain for sale per se is not necessarily improper and does not make its use illegitimate (Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. Compana LLC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0105 (). Finally, the Complainant has not shown, nor is it in any way obvious that the Respondent with its use of the website under the disputed domain name is targeting the Complainant. This could only be assumed, possibly, if the website would display pay-per-click links related to the financial services industry, which is not the case here.”
“In particular, given the circumstances of the loss of the disputed domain name by the Complainant at an unspecified point of time after 2006, and the mere information that the disputed domain name was bought at an auction in 2010, and to infer from this meager information that “it seems obvious” that the Respondent bought the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and to infer additionally that “these circumstances are indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purposes of selling the domain name to its former owner”, are conclusions that are entirely unwarranted in the absence of further evidence. Besides that, it is not obvious or conceivable that the Respondent, who according to the Response is based in Canada and Hong Kong, went to the auction with the Complainant in mind and to see if it could get a domain name that reflected the trademark or the company name of the Complainant.”
D2012-1117 aboutdotmed.com / supportdotmed.com / thedotmed.com > Complaint denied 
Merk Dotmed tegen verweerder die voor de nieuwe gTLD heeft geopteerd voor .med. Legitiem belang wordt aangenomen.
The Panel accepts that Respondents’ purpose in registering the disputed domain names was to enhance its ability to communicate about its “.med Project”, in the face of competition from 3 other applicants seeking the gTLD. As it was not possible to register the precise domain name (and the related domain names and ) it was reasonable for the Respondents to adopt the textual equivalent (e.g., ), without compromising their claim to legitimate rights or interests.
D2012-1217 cloudprovider.com > Complaint denied
IT-bedrijf XXL Webhosting uit Leeuwarden. Opereert in de VS onder cloudproviderusa.com. Er is geen sprake van een merk, noch van overeenstemming. De domeinnaam is daarnaast ouder dan de naam van de eiser. In de media: hier.
“The Panel notes that local reputation might be sufficient for the purpose of establishing rights in a common law mark. However, the evidence before the Panel does not on the balance of probabilities establish that in the Netherlands alone the terms have the necessary secondary meaning. The Complainant’s statement to the effect that its name is protected by Dutch law is a bold assertion that is not substantiated. The evidence of consumer awareness and perception of the distinctiveness of “CloudProvider” or “Cloud Provider” in that country that the Complainant provides is very limited. Further, many references are to Cloudprovider.nl, and to “CloudProvider” plus device. It may be that the latter has acquired considerable distinctiveness, but the Panel is of the view that this is not sufficient for the Complainant to establish that it has relevant rights in the terms “Cloud Provider” as such.
In conclusion, because: of the inherent descriptiveness of the terms at issue; of the insubstantial nature of the evidence of secondary meaning provided; of the absence of historical data concerning the volume and extent of the service offerings of the Complainant, or of its use of the terms “Cloud Provider”; of the fact that establishing distinctiveness of a particular representation of descriptive terms is not by itself enough to establish distinctiveness of the terms not so represented; the term “CloudProvider” was commonly used by the Complainant in a particular colour and script and in combination with a particular device; and because there is no evidence before the Panel of the volume of advertising, consumption or broad consumer perception of the Complainant’s services even in the Dutch market, the Panel is not persuaded that the Complainant has established sufficient rights in the terms “Cloud Provider” for purposes of satisfying the first element of the Policy in this proceeding.”
D2012-1000 airbak.com > Complaint denied 
Verweerder heeft van eiser in 2009 de opdracht gekregen om domeinnaam te registreren en website daaronder de verkoop van eisers productlijn te promoten. Ruzie tussen oprichters van eiser. Thans is er een procedure aanhangig bij de gewone rechter over rechten op de naam van eiser en rechten op de website en de domeinnaam. Er was ten tijde van de registratie sprake van goeder trouw, derhalve geen overdracht.
After careful consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances in the record, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in November 2009. That is to say, the Panel is not persuaded from the record before it that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was motivated by bad faith intent to exploit or profit from the Complainant’s prospective trademark rights.
Although the Respondent’s more recent behavior, and in particular the refusal to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant unless paid the sum of $50,000, could be viewed as opportunistic bad faith use of the disputed domain name, the Panel is mindful that the circumstances in which the Respondent recently has found itself (namely drawn into what has become a contentious dispute between the original members of Air Bak Technologies, LLC) appear to bear little resemblance to the more collegial circumstances in which the Respondent agreed in November 2009 to provide marketing and website services for the newly formed company.
D2012-0702 bladelessfansmall.com > Complaint denied 
[vergelijk D2012-0701, zie ook IEF 11669] Ventilator zonder bladen (“bladeless fan”) van Dyson. Dyson heeft echter geen rechten in de naam “bladeless fan”. Dyson heeft een tweetal retailers gevraagd wat ‘mensen’ bedoelen wanneer ze het hebben over een “bladeless fan”. Onduidelijk wat zij met ‘mensen’ bedoelen. Niet voldoende. Zaak loopt stuk op het eerste vereiste.
Although unsworn, it is open to the Panel to accept such statements as having some probative value. However, they are essentially statements of opinion as to what “people” mean when they use the term “bladeless fan” and it is far from clear just what is meant by the word “people” – whether this is a reference to other staff members in the stores, to customers, or to the public at large. Lack of clarity on this important issue makes it difficult for the Panel to assess whether the words “bladeless fan” have, and are being used with, a trade mark connotation. Both the persons providing these declarations clearly have the experience and expertise to provide meaningful opinion evidence, but for such opinion to carry weight it needs to be clear what the factual basis for it is. Furthermore, in a case such as this, opinion evidence also needed to be supplemented by evidence of actual usage by the Complainant itself, that is, evidence as to the way in which the Complainant’s products actually enter the marketplace and how they are advertised and promoted. On the material before it, however, the Panel is unable to determine whether the words “bladeless fan” have been used as a trade mark by the Complainant, rather than just as a general description of the product which is usually identified by reference to the registered trade marks DYSON or AIR MULTIPLIER.”
D2012-1295 fredelsberry.com > Complaint denied 
Domeinnaam is gemaakt om Fred Elsberry (fredelsberry.org) te bekritiseren. Fred Elsberry is naam en merk. Merk is alleen niet op onderscheidendheid beoordeeld. Eiser heeft onvoldoende aangetoond dat daar sprake is van is. Derhalve loopt het stuk op het eerste punt van het UDRP.
Registration of a mark by a complainant is typically presumptive evidence that the complainant has trademark or service mark rights in the mark. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.6;Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja, WIPO Case No. D2010-1431. However, since the Georgia Secretary of State does not examine mark registrations for distinctiveness, Complainant’s registration does not give rise to this customary presumption. See Trademarks and Service Marks: Frequently Asked Questions, Georgia Secretary of State, https://sos.georgia.gov/corporations/tmfaq.htm (last visited July 23, 2012); Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-441; WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.6; Displays Depot, Inc. v. GNO, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0445. Absent an examined registration, the Policy recognizes service mark rights in a personal name if Complainant can prove that the personal name has acquired secondary meaning by being used in commerce as an indicator of source to a degree sufficient to have become associated with Complainant in the minds of the consuming public. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraphs 1.1, 1.6; Advance News Service Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc. / Religionnewsservice.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-1475.”
D2012-1230 bbvabogota.com > Complaint denied 
Geschillenbeslechter is – wegens gebrek aan bewijs - zelfstandig op onderzoek uitgegaan. Eigen recht/legitiem belang is aanwezig. Bekritiserende website.
As past UDRP panel decisions have demonstrated, it is not enough to merely rely on the stated strength of a company or the international recognition of a trademark.3 The Complaint is full of bare assertions and assumptions. The evidence adduced by Complainant in support of its substantive allegations is limited to copies of the trademark registrations on which the Complaint is based, nothing else. Complainant did not even submit a screenshot of the website at the disputed domain name in order for this Panel to be able to evaluate the merits of the Complaint. On his part, Respondent makes reference to some of the specific contents of the website at the disputed domain name without supplying any evidence thereof.
As set forth in other UDRP cases, this Panel reiterates that it is not its role to look for evidence not supplied by the parties.4 Notwithstanding the aforesaid, due to the lack of evidence adduced by the parties and the lack of the corresponding certification in the Response, in this particular case this Panel decided, reluctantly, to quickly access the website at the disputed domain name.5”
.nl-domeinnamen
DNL2012-0014 swobbit.nl > Transfer
Eiser heeft het merk ‘Swobbit’. Verweerder is vroeger reseller geweest van de producten van eiser. Na eindigen relatie werd de domeinnaam www.swobbit.nl doorgelinkt naar de eigen website van verweerder waarop concurrerende producten werden verkocht. Deels om de eiser ertoe te dwingen de bij verweerder overgebleven voorraad van Swobbit terug te kopen. Dit neemt niet de kwader trouw weg. Daarom: geen eigen recht of legitiem belang en gebruik van de domeinnaam te kwader trouw.
Even so, the Panel does find that there is proof that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith, because the Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to its website at “www.wicbv.nl” which offers products that compete with the Complainant’s products. The Respondent has also indicated that it has used the disputed domain name in order to try to force the Complainant to take back its remaining stock of SWOBBIT products, as the Complainant had allegedly breached the former distribution agreement between the parties. If the Respondent is of the opinion that the Complainant has breached the parties’ agreement and should therefore take back the remaining stock, it should make a case before a regular court. In the context of cyber squatting, the Panel is of the opinion that using the disputed domain name to enforce contractual rights unrelated to such domain name, does not take away the bad faith found to exist in using the disputed domain name for a website which offers competing products.
