WIPO-selectie mei 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. Ditmaal over:
A) Dissenting opinion in gedeeltelijke transfer van domeinnamen, behalve '-scandal' domeinnaam.
B) Doorlinken naar pay-per-click, wel gebruik te kwader trouw, maar geen registratie te kwader trouw.
C) Dierenwelzijnsorganisatie uit 1910 wint het niet van niet-commerciële uitingen/visie op dierenopvang.
D) Feit van typosquatting, is onvoldoende bewijs voor van kwader trouw.
Deze selectie is samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
D2013-0097
yellowstoneclub.net > Transfer, denied in part with dissenting opinion 
Eiser is de zogenaamde Yellowstone Club, een exclusieve golf en skiclub in de VS. Verweerder heeft drie domeinnamen geregistreerd met daarin de merknaam van eiser te weten: yellowstoneclub.net, yellowstoneclubscandal.com en theyellowstoneclub.org. Op de websites onder de domeinnamen laat verweerder zich kritisch uit over eiser. Alleen de domeinnaam “yellowstoneclubscandal.com” hoeft niet overgedragen te worden. De andere twee domeinnamen bestaan enkel uit het merk van eiser. Verweerder presenteert zich hierdoor ten onrechte als eiser en probeert mensen door dat gebruik naar eigen website te lokken. Geen eigen recht of legitiem belang. Daarnaast is er bij deze domeinnamen sprake van gebruik én registratie te kwader trouw.
“By selecting a domain name that is essentially <trademark.tld>, a critic typically intends to lure to its website Internet users seeking information about the owner of the mark that it has appropriated, and thus to increase the audience for the criticism. Respondent here has acknowledged that this was the reason he selected the disputed domain names. As such, in the view of the Panel majority, it is deception that causes the harm to Internet users. Once at the website, an Internet user is exposed to the criticism that he neither sought nor expected. This damage cannot be corrected by a disclaimer or by prompt recognition from the site’s content that its author was not the mark owner; in the view of the Panel majority, neither of these matters comes to the assistance of the Respondent. As stated by the Panel in Justice for Children case, supra:
“Decisions under the Policy focus upon a respondent’s use of another’s mark in a domain name to attract Internet users to respondent’s site. This is true in typosquatting cases and in cases where a respondent selected his domain name in anticipation of subsequent sale to the mark owner. The content of Respondent’s sites in these two categories of cases – cases in which respondents almost uniformly lose – is irrelevant to the harm to the mark owner and to the unwary consumer. That harm results from the confusion caused by the initial attraction to the site by means of borrowing the complainant’s mark. And that is exactly the harm the Policy was adopted to address.”
Respondent has misrepresented itself as Complainant for Respondent’s own benefit to achieve more readers of its criticism. The Panel majority believes it has no right or legitimate interest in doing so.
Applying this same analysis to the third disputed domain name, <yellowstoneclubscandal.com>, dictates a different result. An Internet user who enters that domain name into her browser knows, or should know, that she is not headed to a website likely to be controlled by Complainant. There is no diversion and no misrepresentation. As to that disputed domain name, Respondent has demonstrated a right or legitimate interest.”
D2013-0394
italika.com > Complaint denied
B) Eiser verkoopt motoren onder de naam “Italika” en heeft sinds 2004 meerdere merkrechten op de naam “Italika”. Domeinnaam door verweerder geregistreerd in 2001. Domeinnaam linkt door naar een pay-per-click website waarop links staan naar websites waarop producten van concurrenten van eiser kunnen worden gekocht. Wel sprake van gebruik te kwader trouw, echter registratie te kwader trouw is niet aangetoond. Domeinnaam is eerder geregistreerd dan het merk van eiser. Eiser heeft daarnaast ook niet aangetoond dat zij de naam voor de merkregistratie al gebruikte. Eis wordt afgewezen.
“However, for a complainant to succeed under the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, it is incumbent to show that the relevant domain name was both registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Often it is possible to infer bad faith registration from bad faith use. Nevertheless, each of these aspects of the Policy is distinct and both must be shown.
Paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states that generally speaking, although the Complainant’s trade mark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element irrespective of its date, when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant's relied-upon trade mark right is shown to have been first established (whether on a registered or unregistered basis), the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant's then non-existent right.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 13, 2001, which is three years before the Complainant first registered its ITALIKA trade mark in 2004, and almost four years since the Complainant first registered the <italika.com.mx> domain name in 2005. The Complainant has not submitted any evidence to show that it has been using the ITALIKA mark prior to its trade mark registration in 2004 when it started using the ITALIKA mark on a new line of motorcycles. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it could not have been aware of the Complainant’s then non-existent mark (See Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. v Kwang Pyo Kim, WIPO Case No. D2011-0075).”
D2013-0408
lostdogshome.com > Complaint denied C) Eiser is een dierenwelzijnsorganisatie uit Australië en is sinds 1910 onder de naam “lost dogs home” actief. Verweerder heeft de domeinnaam in 2008 geregistreerd en onderhoudt op de domeinnaam een website waarop hij zijn visie geeft over de dierenopvang en hoe dat volgens hem geregeld dient te zijn. Nu niet blijkt dat verweerder enig commercieel belang bij de domeinnaam heeft, is er geen sprake van registratie dan wel gebruik te kwader trouw.
“In the view of the Panel, the approach to the bad faith element that ought to be adopted in this case is that of the Panel in Sutherland Institute v. Continuative LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0693. In that case, the panel said: “Here Respondent is in this Panel's view using the disputed domain name for purposes of constitutionally protected political speech. In this context, the Panel is reluctant to use a basis for a finding of bad faith other than those expressly enumerated in the Policy. Those expressly enumerated criteria of bad faith reflect the Policy's principal concern with conduct that takes unfair advantage of trademark owners for purposes of commercial advantage.”. Notwithstanding the Respondent’s allusion on the website operated under the disputed domain name to his former association with an alternative animal welfare shelter, it is clear in this case that the Respondent is not in any sense a competitor of the Complainant. Rather, he is an animal rights advocate advancing a particular view of how not-for-profit animal shelters ought to be operated, whose right to free speech ought to be given considerable weight by the Panel. Moreover, “tarnishment” of a trademark must be distinguished from the use of the trade mark for the identification of a trade mark owner in the process of legitimate criticism of the trade mark owner. Absent any evidence of an intent to gain commercial advantage, the Panel does not believe that mere knowledge of the likely diversion of internet users from the Complainant’s website is sufficient, of itself, to constitute bad faith. The Panel cannot find evidence of any such intent in this case.”
D2013-0215 
ricketnetwork.com; ticketneteork.com; ticketnetwirk.com; ticketnetworj.com; tivketnetwork.com > Complaint denied
Eiser is houder van het merk “ticketnetwork” dat is geregistreerd op 31 mei 2005. Verweerder is houder van een vijftal domeinnamen die lijken op het merk van eiser. Steeds is slechts één letter anders. Aannemelijk dat er sprake is van typosquatting. Het enkele feit van typosquatting, is geen bewijs van kwader trouw. Uiteindelijk heeft de eiser de eis onvoldoende onderbouwd. Eis wordt afgewezen.
“The Complainant also cites to the decision in National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011 (“Zuccarini”) asserting that the “Respondent’s typo-squatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith.” However, in Zuccarini, while the respondent’s typosquatting was a factor in the learned panel’s finding of bad faith registration and use of the domain name, the Complainant also argued extensively with regard to the required elements to be proven under the Policy and provided extensive supporting evidence of bad faith, including printouts of the website accessible at the domain name. Here, while the Respondent’s behavior may be characterized as typosquatting and such behavior may support a finding that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, some evidence of abuse at least must be provided for purposes of the third element. In the present case, not even print-outs of the web pages at the Domain Names have been supplied even after the Complainant had an opportunity to provide such evidence in the amended Complaint submitted pursuant to the Center’s deficiency notification. Further, the Panel’s own review shows that the Domain Names do not currently resolve to any website. Such omissions and lack of explanation by the Complainant give the Panel reservation about giving the Complainant any further bites at the “evidentiary apple” via a panel order requesting such materials, which the Panel does not find to be appropriate here. Ultimately, the burden is on the Complainant to prove its case and it is this Panel’s view, that confusing similarity combined with limited assertions alone, is not sufficient to support a finding that the Respondent registered and is using or had used the Domain Names in bad faith.”
