WIPO-selectie januari 2013

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. De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie december 2012 of via dossier domeinnaamrecht (linkerkolom).Ditmaal over:

A. Het hebben van een bedrijf in ‘game trucks’ is een legitiem belang.
B. Een domeinnaam die ter beschikking is gesteld aan een verbonden bedrijf is een legitiem belang.
C. Verhandelen van beschrijvende domeinnamen kan een legitiem belang zijn.
D. Domeinnaam die uit twee merken bestaat, waartegen slechts één optreedt, wordt gecancelled.
E. Geen overtuiging dat domeinnaamhouder recht of legitiem belang heeft (gehad); toch afgewezen.
F. Panel ziet dat de kleur geel gangbaar is rondom Schiphol Airport.
G. Afgewezen: Amerikaanse domeinnaamhouder kon niet weten van de Braziliaanse merkhouder.
H. Duitse advocaat die later dan domeinnaamregistratie eigen naam als merk registreert.
I. Mycadillac geregistreerd met het oog op persoonlijke naam Cadillac, merkhouder heeft ook te lang gewacht.
J. Voormalig distributeur die na beëindiging overeenkomst website onderhoudt, geen kwader trouw.
K. Generieke domeinnaam waarvan inhoud wisselt gebaseerd op locatie van bezoeker; afgewezen.
L. Processuele addendum: Een laat ingezonden ‘not perfect legal draft’.
M. Afwijzingen wegens te weinig bewijs/te weinig gesteld.

De selectie is (deels) samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.

WIPO 12 januari 2013, D2012-1964
gametruck.com > Complaint denied

A) Eiser heeft het merk ‘game truck’ geregistreerd in 2008. De domeinnaamregistratie is gedaan in 2005. Verweerder heeft domeinnaam in 2012 gekocht. Domeinnaam wordt doorgestuurd naar “gamesgo2u” bedrijfswebsite van verweerder. Beschrijvende domeinnaam. Game truck is gangbare term in de business waarin partijen zitten. Verweerder heeft eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam: hij heeft een bedrijf in ‘game trucks’.

“Finally, Respondent has submitted evidence of widespread third party use of the phrase “game truck,” which supports Respondent’s claim that the term is a generic description of the industry and services provided by those who operate in it, and that Respondent is using the Domain Name for its generic value. The Panel also observes that the Domain Name was first registered in May 2005, even though it was subsequently purchased by Respondent from a prior owner on May 3, 2012. As it could not have been an identifier of goods or services in 2005 because there was no one who then made what we now know as game trucks, the expression in 2005 must have had a generic or similar meaning, or been just two dictionary words joined together. This further strengthens Respondent’s argument that the expression is a generic one as it always was (or at least as far back as 2005).”

WIPO 24 januari 2013, D2012-2149
interbrandsgroup.com > Complaint denied

B) Eiser is sinds de jaren 80 merkhouder van het merk Interbrand. Verweerder is een Mexicaanse onderneming ‘Grupo Garze’ die de domeinnaam ter beschikking heeft gesteld aan ‘Interbrands Group’ uit Texas. De twee bedrijven zijn op enigerlei wijze met elkaar verbonden. Hierdoor is er sprake van een eigen recht/legitiem belang, ondanks dat de diensten van Interbrand en Interbrands Group op sommige punten met elkaar overeenstemmen.

“Complainant argued that there are many striking similarities between its business as a brand consultancy, particularly in the retail, food and beverage industry, and that of Respondent. Complainant annexed, for example, copies of pages that it alleged came from Respondent’s website which not only sometimes abbreviate the full name of the US company to “Interbrand” but also contain references to “Creating and managing brand value”, “Marketing Intelligence” “Brand Development”, and “Market Penetration Strategy”. All of this, Complainant alleges, are clear evidence in support of its case that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

Respondent vehemently denies this allegation, claiming that the sole business of its sister company Interbrands Group, LLC is the distribution within the US of products from Mexican companies. Respondent therefore alleges that it has completely legitimate rights and interest in the disputed domain name and relies upon paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy (see below).

It is true that, as noted above, Respondent’s website does contain some references which could be read as being in competition with the services offered by Complainant, but equally these could relate to Respondents’ distributorship services in advising its customers how best to penetrate the US market. Furthermore, Respondent offered to revise the website, an offer to which Complainant did not respond.”

WIPO 12 januari 2013, D2012-2331
riposa.com > Complaint denied
C) Riposa betekent ‘rust’ in het Italiaans. De Zwitserse merkhouder treedt op tegen een Italiaanse domeinnaamhouder. In Italië is de benaming beschrijvend. Verhandelen van beschrijvende domeinnamen kan een legitiem belang zijn. Het Zwitserse merk is vooral slechts nationaal (in Zwitserland) bekend. Domeinnaamhouder heeft eigen recht/legitiem belang.

“It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (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). This task is rendered more crucial in cases, such as the present one, in which the Complainant’s trade mark consists of a common generic word in Italian, such as “riposa”, particularly a trade mark of only at best national reputation. The registration and trade in domain names containing generic words can constitute a legitimate use of them, and the Complainant has provided insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s assertion that such use gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in this case. This is particularly true because of the length of time for which the disputed domain name has been registered. For these reasons it has failed to discharge even its prima facie burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

WIPO 8 januari 2013, D2012-2182
sarenza-lando.com
sarenzalando.com > Cancellation
D) Domeinnaam bestaat uit twee merknamen, te weten ‘Sarenza’ en ‘Zalando’. De merkhouder Zalando treedt op tegen domeinnaamhouder. Domeinnaamhouder is een zogenoemde ‘domain name grabber’. Panel is van mening dat domeinnaamhouder geen eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de domeinnamen heeft en dat de domeinnamen te kwader trouw zijn geregistreerd. In de eis heeft de merkhouder allereerst verzocht om cancelling van de domeinnaam. Daarna heeft de merkhouder toch verzocht om overdracht. Nu echter ook het merk van een derde (‘Sarenza’) in de domeinnamen is verwerkt gaat het panel toch over tot het cancelen van de domeinnaam.

“The Complainant requested that the Disputed Domain Names be cancelled. However, with email dated November 12, 2012 the Complainant filed an amendment requesting that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant.

The amended requested remedy is that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant. Since the Disputed Domain Names also incorporate the registered trademark SARENZA which is owned by a third party, the Panel holds that it is preferable to cancel the Disputed Domain Names.

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names, and , be cancelled.”

WIPO 12 januari 2013, D2012-2275
selecthealth.com > Complaint denied
E) Domeinnaam geregistreerd in 1997. Merkhouder gebruikt Selecthealth merk sinds 2006. Het woordmerk is pas in 2011 geregistreerd. Domeinnaamhouder zegt eerder een website onder de domeinnaam te hebben gehad waardoor hij een eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam zou hebben. Na aanhangig maken van procedure is er door de domeinnaamhouder een andere website op gezet. Het panel vraagt zich af of deze website wel van de domeinnaamhouder is. Daarvoor PPC (pay-per-click) diensten onder de domeinnaam en website die materiaal van de website van eiser kopieerde. Panel krijgt geen overtuiging dat domeinnaamhouder eigen recht/of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft of heeft gehad. Desalniettemin wordt de eis toch afgewezen: er is geen bewijs dat de domeinnaam te kwader trouw geregistreerd. Dit ondanks dat de domeinnaam wel te kwader trouw is gebruikt door de domeinnaamhouder.

“The current website, which was put up after notice of the dispute, has information about a medical Oasis e-Form for mediaire, but it is not clear whether Respondent has simply copied content from other Internet sources as a façade, or developed legitimate content itself.

One further factor that complicates the analysis, as discussed below, is that Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name predates Complainant’s rights in its SELECTHEALTH group of trademarks. Respondent registered the Domain Name in 1997 before any targeting of Complainant could have occurred. Nonetheless, there is a lack of evidence that Respondent has used the Domain Name in a manner that gave rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Panel decides, however, that in this case Complainant’s claim must nevertheless be denied. In the particular circumstances of this case, Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in October 1997, more than 8 years prior to Complainant’s earliest use of the SELECTHEALTH mark. There is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent, at that time, was infringing on any third party’s intellectual property rights. Respondent makes the point that when Complainant registered the identical string in a different top-level domain in 2005, , Complainant was likely aware that Respondent had already registered the Domain Name in the “.com” top-level domain. Respondent used the Domain Name, a combination of the generic terms “select” and “health”, for a period of more than 8 years before Complainant acquired rights in its SELECTHEALTH mark. When a company like Complainant chooses a brand comprised of two common terns, such as “select” and “health”, it runs the risk that third parties may have registered identical or similar domain names previously. Such is the case here. Finally, the Panel does not agree with Complainant’s contention that mere renewals of an existing domain name registration trigger bad faith registration arising as of the time of renewal.”

WIPO 17 december 2012, DNL2012-0033
supershuttle.nl > Complaint denied
F) Domeinnaam is identiek aan merk, echter: eigen recht/legitiem belang en geen gebruik te kwader trouw. Domeinnaam is beschrijvend voor de dienst. Gele kleuren op de website maken niet dat er sprake is van kwader trouw, dit is gangbaar rondom Schiphol.

“In addition, contrary to what Complainant has alleged, the mere fact that Respondent uses blue and yellow colored elements on its website, does not constitute bad faith. The Panel considers that these colors are often used in general, among others by Schiphol Airport.”

WIPO 19 december 2012, D2012-2139
guarani.com > Complaint denied
G) Brazilliaans merk ‘Guarani’. Amerikaanse domeinnaamhouder. Geen kwader trouw nu er niets op wijst dat de domeinnaamhouder op de hoogte was of kon zijn van de merken van de eiser in Brazillië.

The Panel cannot find any evidence of bad faith registration, as - considering the geographical separation between the Complainant and the Respondent - there is nothing in the present record indicating that the Respondent in the US should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks in Brazil and other Latin American countries already at the date of the registration of the disputed domain name , or be required to do a worldwide search for all trademarks that incorporate what appears to be a very common word. None of the PPC links at the disputed domain name goes to any competitor of the Complainant; indeed there is no allegation of such conduct. In short there is no provided evidence of targeting and no evidence of record from which the Panel might infer it.

WIPO 21 december 2012, D2012-2039
lambsdorff.com > Complaint denied
H) Duitse advocaat, Konstantin Graf von Lambsdorff, komt op tegen de domeinnaam lambsdorff.com die is geregistreerd in 2004. In 2012 heeft de advocaat de naam ‘Lambsdorff’ als merk geregistreerd. Eis wordt afgewezen aangezien er geen sprake is van kwader trouw aan de zijde van de domeinnaamhouder. Lambsdorff werd pas in 2012 actief onder de naam Lambsdorff en heeft merk ook pas toen geregistreerd.

“Even in the absence of a Response, the Complainant has not made out its case. Although there is some evidence of bad faith use and a pattern of bad faith conduct, there is no evidence of bad faith registration. The domain name was registered in June 2004, and while the Complainant practiced law for many years, the Complainant only began its own business under the trade name LAMBSDORFF in September 2012. Similarly, the Complainant did not register its mark until September 2012, eight years after the domain name registration. While the Lambsdorff surname is alleged to be “high profile,” the likelihood of confusion with a noble lineage in the abstract is insufficient basis to render the Registrant’s registration in bad faith with respect to the Complainant. The lack of evidence presented to show the creation of the alleged common law rights prior to registration of the domain name is a significant weakness in Complainant’s claim.”

WIPO 19 december 2012, D2012-2196
mycadillac.com > Complaint denied
I) Domeinnaam geregistreerd in 2000. Merkhouder Cadillac heeft merk vanaf 1902. Op de website wordt een PPC (pay per click) dienst aangeboden. De links hebben niet (direct) betrekking op merkhouder. Domeinnaamhouder heeft de domeinnaam geregistreerd met het oog op de geografische en persoonlijke naam (Cadillac als achternaam). Er is niets in het dossier wat het tegendeel bewijst. Merkhouder heeft ook lang gewacht met actie. Geen sprake van kwader trouw.

“The Panel finds more challenging the bad faith factors described in paragraphs 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(iv). Given the long and far-reaching use of the CADILLAC Trademark, the Panel is not so naïve as to think that Respondent was unaware of the trademark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name, standing alone, could be considered by many to be anything other than associated with Complainant. However, there is nothing in the record to contradict Respondent’s assertions that he registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name solely because of its connection with the personal and geographic name “Cadillac” and not because of Complainant’s use of the word as a trademark.”

WIPO 20 december 2012, D2012-2206
artisanandartist.com > Complaint denied
J) Merkhouder heeft Artisan & Artist merk sinds 1999. Domeinnaam geregistreerd in 2004. Domeinnaamhouder sinds 2005 distributeur van producten (o.a. cameratassen) van merkhouder. Distributieovereenkomst in 2008 beëindigd. Nu website met informatie over Artisan & Artist. Eis wordt afgewezen aangezien niet kan worden aangetoond dat de domeinnaam te kwader trouw is geregistreerd.

“For a Complaint to succeed under the Policy, the view of this Panel (in common with many others) is that a complainant must establish to the satisfaction of the Panel that the domain name in issue was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. In the view of the Panel bad faith use on its own will not suffice. The Panel reviewed this issue in some detail in the case of Camon S.p.A. v. Intelli-Pet, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1716, <walkydogusa.com>, a case in which the respondent had been an authorized distributor at the date of registration of the domain name in issue, but had continued to use that domain name after termination of the distributorship and for the purpose of selling products competing with those of the complainant.

In this case the Complainant was in possession of relevant trade mark rights in the United States of America at a time prior to the Respondent’s claimed first use of the name “Artisan & Artist” (see section 4 above), but, as indicated, the Complainant has not complained that at time of registration of the Domain Name the Respondent was acting in bad faith. One would have expected there to have been some correspondence between the parties over the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name at that time, but none has been produced. Moreover, in August 2005, some 17 months after registration of the Domain Name, the Respondent was appointed United States distributor of the Complainant’s products. The distributorship agreement makes no mention of the Domain Name.”

WIPO 6 december 2012, D2012-1700
in-case.com > Complaint denied
K) Merkhouder heeft sinds 1997 ‘in case’ ingeschreven als merk. De domeinnaamhouder heeft in 2007 de (generieke) domeinnaam www.in-case.com geregistreerd. Onder de domeinnaam heeft de domeinnaamhouder een PPC (pay-per-click) website. De links verwijzen naar pagina’s die te maken hebben met ‘case’, ‘cases’, ‘just in case’ etc. inhoud is echter afhankelijk van de locatie van waar de domeinnaam wordt benaderd. Eén keer verwijzing naar merkhouder op de website gestaan. Domeinnaamhouder heeft meerdere domeinnamen met ‘in’ geregistreerd (zoals in-action, in-corporate, in-flight, in-low etc.). Eigen recht of legitiem belang aanwezig.

“The Disputed Domain Name consists of a generic phrase (“in case”). The sponsored links displayed on the Website also largely relate to this phrase. The Panel accepts the Respondent’s submission that the links displayed on the Website are generated by the descriptive nature of the term “in case”, including its variations such as “cases”, and “just in case”. While the Website displayed a link to the Complainant’s website at the time that the screen shot provided by the Complainant was captured, the Panel does not consider this to be evidence that the Complainant was specifically targeted by the Respondent. Rather, the links displayed on the Website relate to various companies in the business of selling and/or manufacturing cases. In addition, the Panel finds that when the Website is viewed outside of the United States, for example in Hong Kong, a significant proportion of the links relate to businesses operated locally. This indicates that the Website content is not fixed or predetermined and is adapted to the geographical location of the Website viewer, as recognised by the panel in Phones4U Limited and Mobileserv Limited v. Marchex Sales Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1656. As such, in the absence of any apparent evidence that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant in any way through use of the Disputed Domain Name and in the absence of any apparent evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in any sense beyond a descriptive sense, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name and the Website constitutes legitimate use under the Policy.

The Panel considers its finding supported by other relevant factors, such as the Respondent’s record of registering domain names containing generic words or phrases prior to these proceedings, many of which incorporate “in” (including <in-action.com>, <in-corporate.com>, <in-flight.com>, <in-flow.com>, <in-germany.com>, <in-ireland.com>, <inquebec.com> and <in2finance.com>) rather than deliberately targeting third party brands or trade marks (see Avnet, Inc. v. Aviation Network, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0046). Another relevant factor taken into account by the Panel is the lack of evidence of the Complainant’s status and fame outside of the United States, particularly in Seychelles where the Respondent is located, to indicate that the use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent could not on balance have been said to be merely descriptive.”

Processuele addendum:
WIPO 8 januari 2013, D2012-1976
wikijobs.com > Transfer
not submitted a "perfect legal draft"

L. The Respondent's reply is written in language which is at times difficult to understand, however, the burden of the reply is as follows: "Please find attached documents and below comments. Concern person from legal team is on travel and they are available to prepare perfect legal draft. But as per commitment here am giving more details in Statement documents and proof of documents. Please go through and do needful."

Het te laat door de verweerder ingediende verweer maakt het eerdere oordeel van het panel niet anders.

The Respondent's reply is written in language which is at times difficult to understand, however, the burden of the reply is as follows:
(i) The Complainant's explanation of its failure to refer to the correspondence of January 3 and February 9 of 2012 is untrustworthy.
(ii) The website at the disputed domain name received substantial traffic in the period January 12 to February 12, 2012.
(iii) The Complainant's statements regarding captures of the website at the disputed domain name are false. The Respondent produces a printout purporting to show that the URL is blocked by robot exclusion.
(iv) He is the CEO of Wisdom IT Services and holds the disputed domain name on its behalf and that the previous owners of the disputed domain name have likewise held the disputed domain name on that company's behalf.
(v) Documents which he submits show that the disputed domain name is very valuable.
(vi) The Complainant is relatively small and unsubstantial whilst his company is large and very active.

M. Afwijzingen wegens te weinig bewijs/te weinig gesteld:

WIPO 11 januari 2013, D2012-1957
taringadescargas.com
taringamusica.com
taringamusicagratis.com
taringapeliculas.com
xtaringa.com > Complaint denied

Onvoldoende gesteld om aannemelijk te maken dat er sprake is van geen eigen/recht of legitiem belang aan de zijde van de domeinnaamhouder. Geen bewijs om aan te tonen dat er sprake is van kwader trouw.

WIPO 7 januari 2013, concurring opinion D2012-2075
intelligentsia.com > Complaint denied

Domeinnaamhouder is sinds 2002 houder van de domeinnaam. Eiser is sinds 2002 merkhouder van het merk ‘Intelligentsia’. Merkhouder heeft zijn standpunten te weinig onderbouwd. Derhalve afwijzing.

WIPO 21 december 2012, D2012-2086
thepaydaypig.com > Complaint denied
Eiser bewijst onvoldoende dat hij een merkrecht heeft op ‘Payday Pig’. Er is in ieder geval geen merkinschrijving. Te weinig gesteld en overgelegd om een gebruik als merk aan te nemen en de daarbij behorende bescherming toe te kennen. Er wordt derhalve niet aan het eerste vereiste voldaan.

“The Panel also notes that the Response clearly raised the adequacy of the Complainant’s claim to an unregistered mark. Yet, the Complainant did not take full advantage of the opportunity to provide more convincing evidence of an unregistered mark.

Had the Complainant satisfied the first criterion, the Panel could see an arguable case under the other two criteria of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. However, no decision on those criteria is required, since the Complaint fails at the first hurdle.”