Privacy Service
Domeinnaam. Merkenrecht. Domeinnaam is verwarrend gelijkelijk aan de merken van MEDIQ. Geen recht of legitiem belang en domein wordt niet niet-commercieel of fair gebruikt.
Verweerder had click-through of pay-per-click business model ontwikkeld voor de site en bood dit aan pharmacie- en medicijnwebsites aan te adverteren. Dat is gebruik te kwader trouw. Domeinnaam overgedragen.
Betreft Identiteit van de verweerder: DomainsByProxy biedt een privacy service, zodat contactgegevens van daadwerkelijke registeerder verborgen blijven. Na start van de procedure werden contactgegevens overlegd aan WIPO en werd Janelle Fausette eveneens betrokken in deze procedure. Via emailadres en fysiek adres aan Janelle, postmaster en via DomainsByProxy en aan adres van laatste betekend. Dus voldoende pogingen gedaan om verweerders te contacteren.
Onder C (...)
According to the evidence, the disputed domain name resolves to a website managed by GoDaddy, a company that trades in domain names, website hosting and other Internet services. The GoDaddy website resolved to by the disputed domain name displays the line: “Want to buy this domain? Our Domain Buy Service can help you get it.” The Panel interprets that line as meaning that the disputed domain name is offered for sale to visitors who may have reached it in the process of searching for the Complainant’s trademark or accepting search results containing the Complainant’s trademark. In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, and on the balance of probabilities, it may reasonably be concluded that the Respondent intends to sell the disputed domain name for a price in excess of the costs of registration, and that the registration was made primarily for that purpose, constituting bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.A screen capture made on August 22, 2011, produced in evidence, displays the website to which the disputed domain name resolved at that time. The Respondent’s website offered links to other websites generally related to pharmacies and medicines. It may reasonably be concluded that the Respondent has enabled the provision of these links in return for revenue through the business model known as click-through or pay-per-click. By this model the advertiser pays a commission, at least part of which would be received by the Respondent, in return for referrals received through links. Such an operation may be entirely legitimate and is routinely used to provide partial funding for public service or news websites, or as a legitimate stand-alone business.
In order to succeed commercially, however, the operator of a pay-per-click website must attract visitors. The Respondent in the present case must expect to attract visitors seeking the Complainant’s trademark, to which the Respondent does not have rights, thus rendering the operation not bona fide. The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent, pending the primary purpose of selling the disputed domain name, has put it to use in order to attract visitors in the expectation of commercial gain resulting from their initial interest confusion, constituting bad faith within the contemplation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
