Verwijst naar universiteit
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Geschillenbeslechter 30 juni 2011, zaaknr. D2011-0636 (Cooperative Unive U.A. tegen Ashantiplc Ltd en Domain Name Privacy LLC, inzake unive.com) Arbiters: Lothian, Machado en Lyon.
Even kort. Domeinnaamrecht. Merkennaamrecht. WIPO geschillenbeslechting. Woord "unive" wordt wijdverbreid gebruikt, vaak als afkorting van universiteit. Uit klacht valt niet af te leiden dat verweerder op de hoogte had moeten zijn van het merk van klager. Klacht heeft geen kwade trouw van verweerder aangetoond. Klager heeft klacht niet onderbouwd en probeert WIPO Panel te misleiden, dus sprake van kwade trouw van klager. Misbruik van procesrecht. Klacht is afgewezen.
The record shows that “unive” is a term in widespread use both as a truncation of ‘university’ and with other meanings. Furthermore, it is clear to the Panel that, while the term can refer to the Complainant’s trademark, the overwhelming search association of the term “unive” is to subject matter relating to universities. Moreover, the Panel finds that there is nothing in the Complaint (including annexes) to indicate that (i) the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant or its mark when it registered the disputed domain name, (ii) the Respondent ever used the disputed domain name for any insurance-related matter or directed its contents to Internet users in The Netherlands, or (iii) the Respondent targeted the Complainant or its trademark in any way at any time.
The Complaint contains no allegation of facts from which bad faith on the part of the Respondent could reasonably be inferred, and absolutely no evidence of such. The Complainant effectively asserts that any person who uses the term “unive” in any way is ipso facto acting in bad faith, solely by virtue of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant does not describe or provide evidence of the use to which Respondent put the disputed domain name other than a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name, which incidentally supports the Respondent’s contention that it uses the term in connection with its association with universities. The Complainant merely asserts that the Respondent’s use is “commercial”.
