Hugobossoutlet.nl te kwader trouw geregistreerd

WIPO Arbitration and Medication Center 21 september 2015, IEF 15359; Case No. DNL2015-0034 (hugobossoutlet.nl)
Uitspraak ingezonden door Annelot Sitsen en Lars Bakers, Bingh Advocaten. Domeinnaamgeschil. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management stelt dat de domeinnaam "hugobossoutlet.nl" voor verwarring zorgt. Deze website is door de hosting provider geblokkeerd maar is duidelijk zichtbaar geweest als handelsmerk voor kledingproducten. De website creeërde ten onrechte de indruk dat het verbonden is met Hugo Boss. Bovendien is er sterk het vermoeden dat het gaat om namaakproducten. Het Panel oordeelt dat de domeinnaam verwarrende gelijkenis toont door het dominerende bestanddeel Hugo Boss waarin verweerder geen rechten of legitieme belangen heeft. De domeinnaam is geregistreerd en gebruikt te kwader trouw omdat de merkenregistratie 37 jaar voor de domeinnaamregistratie ligt en door een kleine inspanning had verweerder hier achter kunnen komen. De domeinnaam moet overgedragen worden aan Hugo Boss. 

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks. The Trade Marks consist of (or include) the name “Hugo Boss”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.nl ” does not change the overall impression, as the applicable top-level suffix in the domain name is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test, since it is a technical registration requirement (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.2). The addition of the word “outlet” is descriptive and does not alter the overall impression, as HUGO BOSS clearly is the dominant element in the Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). The Complainant asserts that the website connected to the Domain Name prominently displayed the BOSS HUGO BOSS trademark, as well as pictures of clothing products which were offered for sale under the HUGO BOSS trademark, which wrongly creates the impression that the website is an online outlet store of or connected to the Complainant. The Panel notes that the domain name <hugobossoutlet.nl> may indeed create the impression of being the website of a reseller or distributor of the Complainant. As set out in paragraph 2.3 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, 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 at issue if certain requirements are met. The leading case on this point is OKI Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. Under OKI Data case in order for the offerings of the Respondent on its website under the Domain Name to be characterised as bona fide, the following requirements must be met:
a) the Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
b) the Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods;
c) the site must accurately disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents;
d) the Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.
The Complaint does not expressly reflect upon this decision, and the Panelist will discuss this on the basis of the statements submitted and the evidence provided. On the basis of the screen print, it must be assumed that elements a, b and d of the OKI Data criteria are fulfilled, but element c is not, as the screen print of the website does not contain any information on the relationship with the Complainant. Moreover, in view of the prominent use of the Trademarks (including a device mark) in connection with the goods (fashion products) this may in the Panel’s view create the impression that the website is that of an official distributor. In view of all of the above, the Panel concludes that the Complainant on balance has made out the prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. As no Response has been submitted, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has to show that the Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.The Complainant’s case in this respect is based upon the same assertions and evidence referred to in paragraph 6B. Based on the information and the documents provided by the Complainant, the Panel assumes that at the time of registration of the Domain Name the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Trademarks. First, the registration date of the Trademarks lie more than 37 years before the registration date of the Domain Name. Second, one of the designated states for the registration of the Trademarks is Germany, the state of domicile of the Respondent. Thirdly, the name “Hugo Boss”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name, is not a name that a person wishing to register a domain name would accidentally think of. In addition, if the Respondent had not actually been aware of the Complainant or the Trademarks, a small effort on its part would have revealed the Complainant’s rights to the Trademarks. A simple online trade mark register search would have informed the Respondent of the existence of the Trademarks (and many other trademarks of the Complainant incorporating the name “Hugo Boss”). Taking into account that the Respondent has not filed a Response to counter the submissions of the Complainant, the Panel on balance concludes that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <hugobossoutlet.nl>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Op andere blogs:
Novagraaf