WIPO-procedure leent zich niet voor beslechting van contractuele geschillen

WIPO 23 januari 2013, nr. D2012-2309 (Merk-Echt B.V. tegen Tilma Consultants)

Beeldmerk. Woordmerk MERK-ECHT. Domeinnaam "merkecht.com". Registratie te kwader trouw. Contractuele geschillen

Eiser is merkhouder van een Benelux beeld- en woordmerk "MERK-ECHT'. Respondent is één van de drie founding shareholders van de Merk-Echt B.V. en heeft zijn aandeel in het bedrijf in 2009 verkocht aan Merk-Echt B.V.. Het merk werd in beginsel geregistreerd door Respondent, zowel het beeldmerk als het woordmerk zijn overgedragen aan eiser in 2009.

De domeinnaam "merkecht.com" is op 20 november 1999 geregistreerd door Respondent. De betreffende domeinnaam heeft grote gelijkenissen met het merk 'MERK-ECHT'. Vaststaat dat er verwarringsgevaar bestaat ten opzichte van het  merk van eiser. De shareholders en eiser waren op de hoogte van de registratie van de domeinnaam door gedaagde, aangezien zij bekend waren met de periodieke betalingen voor de domeinnaam. Respondent heeft de domeinnaam gebruikt om gebruikers door te linken naar zijn website, van registratie te kwader trouw is geen sprake.

De WIPO-procedure leent zich niet voor het beoordelen van contractuele geschillen, daarvoor staat de gang naar de gewone rechter open. De vordering tot overdracht wordt afgewezen.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. In the present case, the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that it has rights in the trademarks mentioned in paragraph 4 above. It is well established that top level domain extensions such as “.com” may typically not be considered in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). When comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s word mark MERK-ECHT, the only difference is that the disputed domain name fails the hyphen. This does not, however, change the overall impression of the disputed domain name which remains very similar to said word mark MERK-ECHT. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
(...) However this may be, even if (future) use of the disputed domain name would be in bad faith, the Panel reminds the Complainant that it should also be established that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complaint and Response are at odds as to whether the Respondent was authorized to register the disputed domain name in its own name in 1999, which is when the Complainant was established. The Complainant, or its other shareholders, must have known that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent as they alleged to have paid the annual renewal fees for the disputed domain name and the Complainant has actually been using the disputed domain name to link Internet users to its website. The Panel considers this to be an indication that the Complainant (at least implicitly) agreed to the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, even though the beneficiary owner is the Complainant. The registration of the disputed domain name was therefore not made in bad faith.

Additionally, the Panel observes that this domain name dispute is part of a greater dispute between the parties, apparently based on contract(s) and alleged non-compliance. The parties have ample opportunity in ordinary court proceedings to argue their case. The Policy offers, however, limited administrative proceedings for domain names that potentially conflict with trademarks and which purpose is to prevent the misuse of the domain name system by so-called cybersquatters. These administrative proceedings are not intended to solve contractual disputes, and the Panel is lacking both the power and the legal means to deal with questions concerning an underlying contractual relationship and the legality of a right of retention (see LPA LES PRODUITS ASSOCIES SA vs. ICCWorldWide Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-0900).