WIPO-selectie maart 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 februari 2013 of via dossier domeinnaamrecht (linkerkolom). Ditmaal over:
A) Weigering domeinnaam terug te geven na afloop licentie
B) Geen actief gebruik is nog geen kwader trouw van verlenging van registratie
C) Oud-werknemer, maar naam is nooit als merk gebruikt
D) pythian.nl; bedrijfsnaam kan in meerdere landen door anderen worden gebruikt
E) Vernieuwing van bedrijfsnaam
F) Ingehuurd IT-dienst verlengt domeinnaam niet, verweerder koopt het via veiling
G) Niet tijdig conform de tijdzone van het WIPO verweer ingediend
H) Vermoedelijk zakelijke relatie eiser-verweerder niet genoemd en te lang gewacht
I) Merken komen niet verwarringwekkend overeen
J) MILK en MILF hebben een andere nogal andere betekenis
Deze selectie is samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
D2013-0197
exdrinks.com > Complaint denied
A) Klager heeft VS merk ‘exdrinks’ geregistreerd in 2007. Domeinnaam is in 2001 door de klager geregistreerd en door klager in 2009 in licentie gegeven aan verweerder. Er heeft ooit een website op gestaan met betrekking tot verkoop van de producten van de klager. Nu niks meer met de domeinnaam gedaan. Verweerder weigert de domeinnaam terug te geven na afloop van de licentie. Moeilijk te bepalen en te bewijzen (al dan niet onmogelijk) of de wil om de domeinnaam niet terug te geven op het moment van registratie onder de licentie al aanwezig was. Kwader trouw kan derhalve niet zondermeer (bij registratie) worden aangenomen. Hier is helaas geen voorziening voor in de geschillenregeling.
“It is impossible to say, in the absence of factual evidence, when the Respondent formed the intention not to respect the right of reversion, whether that be at the time of registration or subsequently. However, it is reasonable to infer the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of the fact that EXDRINKS was a trademark owned by the Complainant’s business and that the Complainant would not grant such a license if it thought the Respondent would act arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably when the time came to give it back.
This Panel has had regard to the interpretive approach adopted by Blackstone1 (paraphrasing a point made by the seventeenth century legal thinker, Samuel Pufendorf) in relation to a law of Bologna “that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity” should not be interpreted to make punishable a surgeon “who opened a vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit”. In this Panel’s view, this is one such circumstance where that approach is desirable to avoid an injustice to be visited upon the Complainant. The interpretative approach would have to be based on the intentions of the parties expressed in the contract made at the time immediately preceding registration along the lines that the terms of that contract were the sine qua non of the registration, the thing without which good faith registration would not have been possible. While the Panelist held in Mile, Inc., that there is “value, in appropriate cases, of inferences of original intent based on subsequent conduct” in this case the weight required to be put on the subsequent conduct subverts the conjunctive requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and thereby treats the requirement to establish that the Respondent “registered and used the domain name in bad faith” as a “unified concept” such as that followed in what has become known as the Mummygold/Octogen decisions (...). This Panel declines to follow those well meaning but torturous decisions and reluctantly accepts that registration under a license that has since terminated in the context of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is an unfortunate instance the Policy has failed to anticipate and make provision for.”
D2013-0107
zija.com > Complaint denied
B) Domeinnaam was eerder door verweerder geregistreerd dan registratie van het merk van klager. Maakt tussentijdse vernieuwing van de domeinnaam dat er sprake is van kwader trouw? Nee, want de domeinnaam was twee jaar voor registratie van het merk reeds geregistreerd. Het feit dat de verweerder de domeinnaam nu niet (actief) gebruikt is geen reden om gebruik te kwader trouw aan te nemen. Eis loopt stuk op vereiste van de kwader trouw.
“While the transfer of a domain name to a third party does amount to a new registration, a mere renewal of a domain name has not generally been treated as a new registration for the purpose of assessing bad faith. Registration in bad faith must normally occur at the time the current registrant took possession of the domain name.“
Eastman Sporto Group LLC v. Jim and Kenny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1688, recognized that exceptions may arise where a renewal could be viewed as a separate registration if a respondent-registrant engaged in some intervening act between the time of the original registration and the renewal, that reflected bad faith. The panel found that, under the particular factual circumstances present there, the domain name renewal reflected bad faith and predicated its view on the panel’s reasoning in ehotel AG v. Network Technologies Polska Jasinski Lutoborski Sp.J., WIPO Case No. D2009-0785, which stated, in pertinent part:
D2013-0183
texascash.com > Complaint denied
C) Oud- werknemer heeft domeinnaam texascash.com geregistreerd. Domeinnaam linkt door naar website van klager TCR Business systems. “Texas Cash” is door klager echter nooit als merk gebruikt. De eis loopt stuk op eerste vereiste van de geschillenregeling: geen verwarringwekkende overeenstemming.
“After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the record, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating trademark or service mark rights in “Texas Cash”. Although the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant’s website, nowhere on the Complainant’s website is “Texas Cash” used as a source indicator for the Complainant’s products and services. The Complainant’s website is entitled “TCR Business Systems”, and it is this symbol that appears consistently to be used by the Complainant on its website to identify the products and services it provides.
Insofar as the Panel can determine based on the record before it, the words “Texas Cash” appear only as part of a copyright legend “Texas Cash Register © 2005”, and nowhere else on the Complainant’s website. Nor has the Complainant otherwise submitted evidence of the use of “Texas Cash” as a mark. As such, for purposes of the present Policy proceeding, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate use of “Texas Cash” as a distinctive or exclusive identifier of its products or services.”
DNL2012-0072
pythian.nl > Complaint denied
D) Het feit dat een bedrijf in een land (in dit geval Canada) rechten heeft op een bepaalde naam, staat er niet aan in de weg dat in een ander land een ander bedrijf eveneens rechten op dezelfde naam kan hebben of krijgen. Sprake van eigen recht/legitiem belang.
In the absence of any further substantiation to the contrary by the Complainant, the Panel has to assume that Pythian B.V and subsequently the Respondent have been legitimately using, or preparing to use, before any notice of the dispute, the trade name Pythian, as part of which effort it registered the Domain Name, and therefore have a legitimate interest to reflect this trade name in the Domain Name. The fact that a certain company with rights in a name exists in one country does not necessarily prevent another company from using that trade name elsewhere. In the absence of indications in the record that the Respondent chose “Pythian” to capitalize of Complainant rights, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
D2013-0064
gregoryjewellers.net > Complaint denied
E) Twee juweliers uit Australië. Klagers verkopen al geruime tijd sieraden onder de naam “Gregory Jewellers”. Verweerder is bekend onder de naam “Neville Gregory Jewellers” dan wel “Neville Gregory Leading Edge Jewellers”. Verweerder registreert op 21 mei 2011 de domeinnaam wegens vernieuwing van haar bedrijfsnaam. Dit is niet aan te merken als registratie te kwader trouw. Uitkomst had anders kunnen zijn wanneer meer onderbouwd.
“The Respondent has therefore come up with what, on the face of it, is an entirely plausible reason for the selection of the disputed domain name, which is independent of the Complainants. Like the Complainants, the Respondent’s business is family-run. In the Panel’s view, the change of name to concentrate on the family surname “Gregory” and exclude the first-name “Neville” is potentially a naturally branding progression. In any case, it is not such an unusual change of direction that it immediately casts doubt on the bona fides of the Respondent. In the above circumstances, the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainants when it selected the disputed domain name, does not of itself indicate to the Panel that the Respondent possessed a malign purpose vis-à-vis the Complainants.
Of course, the position would have been different if there had been any evidence indicating that the name-change was in some way motivated by the Complainants but there is nothing of that nature. For example, there is no suggestion that the Respondent has at any stage copied any aspect of the Complainants’ website.”
D2012-2534
capitalmatrix.com > Complaint denied
F) Domeinnaam in 1997 geregistreerd door klager. Door toedoen van een door klager ingehuurd IT-bedrijf domeinnaam niet verlengd. Door verweerder op een domeinnaamveiling gekocht. Onvoldoende bewijs dat sprake is van registratie dan wel gebruik te kwader trouw.
“In light of this, and also considering the absence of any evidence that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant in any way through the registration and/or use of either the disputed domain name or the Website, the Panel is unable to find that Respondent was more likely than not aware, or had knowledge, of the Complainant at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel also considers that the offer for sale of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is, of itself and without other supporting factors, insufficient evidence to support the Complainant's contention of bad faith registration on the basis of registration primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration.”
D2012-2502
phaseeight.com > Complaint denied
G) Verweerder heeft zijn verweer tijdig in zijn tijdzone, maar niet tijdig conform de tijdzone van het WIPO ingediend. Verweer wordt toch meegenomen. Klager is voornamelijk actief in Europa onder de naam Phase Eight sinds 1979. In 2008 heeft verweerder een merk in de VS geregistreerd. Verweerder is afkomstig uit de VS en heeft de domeinnaam in 2004 geregistreerd ten behoeve van een – nooit uitgebrachte – film. Geen kwader trouw bij registratie/gebruik: geen bewijs dat verweerder kennis had van bestaan van klager in 2004.
“The Panel holds the view that it is sufficient that Respondent has met the deadline in its time zone. However, even if it is assumed that the Response was filed one day late, the Panel considers that the lateness of Respondent’s response is de minimis and has not prejudiced the Complainant nor has it delayed the Decision in this Administrative Proceeding. The Panel therefore has admitted and considered the evidence and submissions in the Response. The Panel has reached the same conclusion in respect of the Supplemental Response, which was also filed one day late and not properly transmitted by the Respondent to the Complainant.”
“The onus is on the Complainant to prove that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. In the present proceeding the Panel is not satisfied that the Complainant has discharged its onus. It has provided no evidence that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant at the time of Registration. The Respondent has provided a plausible reason for registering the Domain Name and some (limited) evidence in support of its claims. The Respondent’s conduct in holding the Domain Name for 9 years without attempting to sell the Domain Name or contact the Complainant in any way provides further support for its assertion that it did not register the Domain Name with the Complainant in mind. In the absence of a finding that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith it is not necessary to reach a conclusion on whether the Domain Name is used in bad faith.”
D2012-2497
excellenceplayamujeresresort.com
excellencepuntacanaresort.com
excellencerivieracancunresort.com > Complaint denied
H) Klager was op de hoogte van de registratie en het gebruik van de domeinnaam. Er zou zelfs een zakelijke relatie tussen partijen zijn geweest. Hierover is door klager niets vermeld in zijn eis. Dit zit het panel dwars. Dit feit en het lange stilzitten van de klager maken dat er de eis strandt doordat de klager niet aannemelijk heeft kunnen maken dat verweerder geen eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. Er wordt nogmaals benadrukt dat het de verantwoordelijkheid van partijen is om voldoende bewijzen te verstrekken.
“Respondent supplied 3 communications between Complainant and Vacation Store, dated between June and October 2008, which show that (i) both had a business relationship at that time (specific reference to certain 2008-2009 contracts), (ii) Complainant asked Vacation Store to use certain pictures, fact sheets and rates in the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (iii) Complainant asked the websites be reviewed, and (iv) Complainant asked that the logo of Secrets Excellence be deleted from the Evacationtours’ website.
In this Panel’s view, the evidence in the present case shows that Complainant was aware of the registration and use of the disputed domain names since at least 2008, from which it may be inferred that Complainant tacitly acquiesced to such registration and use. Moreover, more than 4 years have elapsed since 2008 (time of those communications provided by Respondent) without Complainant having taken any action against Respondent, which further reinforces the inference in the present case that Complainant acquiesced to such registration and use. Further, it troubles this Panel that Complainant had not disclosed that business relationship, or the fact that (and extent to which) Complainant acquiesced to the use of the disputed domain names by Respondent.”
D2012-2467
tatamassage.com > Complaint denied
I) Merkhouder “TATA”. Ondanks dat de domeinnaam niet geheel overeenkomt met de merken of domeinnamen van de merkhouder, toch sprake van verwarringwekkende overeenstemming (dubieus). Eis loopt echter sowieso stuk op het tweede vereiste: de domeinnaamhouder heeft eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam.
The disputed domain name is not identical to any of the Complainant’s trademarks as, even disregarding the “.com” extension, none of the Complainant’s trademarks include the alphabetical string “massage”. Even so, the disputed domain name is plainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.”
“These circumstances distinguish the present case from the numerous previous UDRP decisions in which the Complainant has successfully made out its claims. Those that were defended involved different respondents, different domain names and different claimed justifications.
In this state of the record, the Panel is not prepared to infer that the Respondent, or those behind it, must have known of the Complainant’s trademarks and adopted the Tata name because of its associations with the Complainant. Instead, the Respondent has provided credible evidence, within the constraints of an administrative proceeding of this kind, that the disputed domain name was adopted because the masseuse providing the Respondent’s massage services is known as Tata. As the disputed domain name is being used in connection with an apparently legitimate business which does not fall reasonably clearly within the Complainant’s proven rights, the Respondent appears to have rights or a legitimate interest to use the disputed domain name.”
D2012-2285
gotmilf.com > Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
J) Merkhouder (sinds 1993) ‘Got Milk?’ vs. verweerder. Verweerder heeft domeinnaam verkregen in 2010. De website van verweerder bevatte links naar vooral pornografische websites. Merendeel van het panel meent dat er geen verwarringwekkende overeenstemming is tussen domeinnaam en merk. Eén van de redenen daarvoor is het feit dat het vervangen van de “k” door de “f” een hele andere lading aan de betekenis van de domeinnaam geeft. Betekenis van “Milf” wordt uitgelegd. Eén geschillenbeslechter is een andere mening toegedaan. Eis loopt desalniettemin stuk op eerste vereiste.
“First, the Domain Name <gotmilf.com> and the mark GOT MILK? do not sound exactly alike.
Second, and this is a minor point, there is a question mark in Complainant’s mark, which is absent from the Domain Name.
Third, even though there is only one letter’s difference between the Domain Name and the mark (an “f” being substituted for a “k”), the difference is significant. The substitution of “f” for “k” creates a new word and suggests an entirely different meaning. Internet users may consult one of a number of sources for the meaning of the acronym “milf,” but in any event it is a rather vulgar slang term in fairly widespread usage. A MILF may be defined as a mother – not one’s own, for there does not appear to be any Oedipal connotation – with whom one would fancy a carnal encounter. According to Wikipedia, the term has been in usage since the 1990s, and it achieved a boost in popularity from its appearance in the 1999 movie American Pie. The fact that the Domain Name has a meaning of its own weighs against a finding of confusing similarity to the mark.
Fourth, the Panel majority does not believe that the Domain Name can fairly be ascribed to typosquatting. A typographical error typically emerges from one of three sources: (a) the typist is mistaken about, or does not know, the correct spelling of the word he or she is trying to type; or (b) the typist “fat-fingers” the keyboard and strikes a key adjacent to the one intended; or (c) the typist carelessly omits a letter or keys in a letter twice where only once was intended.i None of these circumstances applies here. It is doubtful that anyone actually believes that “milk” is spelled with an “f” instead of a “k.” Moreover, on the QWERTY and AZERTY keyboards, “f” and “k” are separated by several letters, and hence “fat-fingering” can be ruled out. Finally, the Domain Name does not reflect the careless omission of a letter, or the unintended repetition of a letter, from the mark in question”
