Gepubliceerd op maandag 20 februari 2012

IEF 10939

De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

WIPO-selectie februari 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: reverse domain name hacking via overname rechtsvoorganger, gebruik van Russische Google zoekopdracht, een voorbeeld van toepassing van Oki Data-criteria bij niet-geautoriseerde verkoper en niet-concurrerende gesponsorde links.

D2011-2034 (reverse domain name hijacking)

ad-aware.com > Complaint denied

Lavasoft is houdster van diverse merkenrecht op AD-AWARE. Haar rechtsvoorganger had gedurende 9,5 jaar een handelsrelatie met de Respondent. Haar rechtsvoorganger had de website adaware.com geregistreerd.

De Panellist is van mening dat de complainant the policy ter kwader trouw inzet om de domeinnaam www.ad-aware.com (inclusief koppelteken) te verkrijgen, en weigert de vordering.

D2011-2090 (Arbiter voert Google Search in't Russisch uit, voor bewijs)

interprox.com > Complaint denied

Onder C: "The Complainant has not demonstrated any proof, from which it could be inferred, that the aim of the Respondent, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, was to resell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name registration at a price exceeding out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence that could justify an assumption that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant’s -mark. A Google search in Russian made by the Panel did not make any connection between “Interprox” and the company of the Complainant; to the contrary, the only link was made to “Interpol”. Perhaps the Google search engine in Spain does make such a connection, but the default Google search engine for the Respondent is likely to be in Russian. The expression “Interprox”, if divided into two parts, may relate to a number of services and companies since “inter” is a generic word and “prox” is commonly used in the IT and engineering fields. This further supports that the Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent acted in bad faith at the time of registration of the disputed domain name."

D2011-2117 (toepassing Oki Data criteria; consensus view)

cadillacperformance.com > Complaint denied

Onder B "The Respondent thus falls into the category of an unauthorized reseller. The WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.3, indicates a Consensus view regarding resellers’ rights or legitimate interests vel non under paragraph 4(a)(ii): “Normally, a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements. These requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site's accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder. The respondent must also not try to ‘corner the market’ in domain names that reflect the trademark.” Although the seminal case setting out this approach, Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, involved an authorized reseller, the Consensus view notes that “Many panels subscribing to this view have also found that not only authorized but also unauthorized resellers may fall within such Oki Data principles.”

D2011-1977 (geen concurrenten in de gesponsorde links)

supermax.com > Complaint denied [red. deze had ook anders uit kunnen pakken]
Onder B " b) None of the sponsored links which appear on the website attached to the Disputed Domain Name are in competition with the products offered by the Complainant, which would be an important consideration in determining whether the Respondent’s conduct may be considered fair;"