Eerste WIPO Friesland-gTLD-.frl-zaak wordt toegewezen

WIPO Arbitrage 10 maart 2016, IEF 15793; D2016-0104 (euromaster.frl)
Domeinnaamrecht. De domeinnaam euromaster.frl refereert overduidelijk naar activiteiten in Friesland, waarvoor de gTLD .frl is gereserveerd.  Het hebben van een domeinnaam zonder actieve website is geen fair use of te goeder trouw gebruik. Het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat domeinnaamhouder niet bekend was met het merk Euromaster, wat een bekend merk is over de gehele wereld. De overdracht wordt bevolen.

Moreover, the Domain Name obviously refers to its activities in Friesland. The Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the Domain Name.

Firstly, the Complainant has its registered office in Netherlands – the home country of the Respondent. Secondly, several UDRP panels have previously mentioned its reputation in the European region, making it unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s proprietary rights in the Trademark. Thirdly, as the composition of the Domain Name entirely reproduces the Trademark while the new gTLD refers to the Complainant’s activities in Friesland, it is impossible that the Respondent had not this Trademark in mind while registering the Domain Name.

The Complainant’s registered office is located in the Netherlands and the Complainant is also present is several parts of Netherlands including Friesland where it has four Euromaster garages. Similarly, reproducing a trademark enjoying a strong reputation in Europe, and in particular in Netherlands which is also the Respondent’s home country, in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good faith.
It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In light of the evidence filed by the Complainant and the absence of a response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant and its Trademark are well-known throughout the world. Accordingly, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s existence and rights when it registered the Domain Name. A cursory search on the Internet would have revealed the notoriety of the Complainant and its Trademark. This is emphasized by the fact that the Domain Name is parked and that the Complainant’s registered office is located in the Netherlands.