WIPO-selectie april 2013
Domeinnaamrecht. We beperken ons tot een doorlopende selectie van WIPO-geschillenbeslechtingsprocedures die wellicht interessant zijn. Hier een overzicht van de in de laatste weken gepubliceerde procedures. Ditmaal over:
A) Aanwijzingen dat er meer aan de hand is, eis niet geschikt voor UDRP procedure
B) Easybook.com bestaat uit beschrijvende termen, die te maken hebben met diensten verweerder (e-books)
C) Registratie domeinnaam tijdens onderhandelingen is niet te kwader trouw
D) Zes weken voor indienen van eis een merkregistratie ingediend
E) Natwest heeft geen rechten opgebouwd voor nwolb
F) Ticketnetwork is twee jaar later dan de domeinnaam als merk geregistreerd
G) Eiser bewijst niet 'common law’ merkrechten op afkorting RT van "The Real Truth Magazine"
H) Eiser toont niet te kwader trouw ten tijde van registratie aan
Deze selectie is samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
DNL2012-0076
goolfy.nl > Complaint denied
A) Luxemburgse houder van Beneluxmerk voor indoor glow-in-the-dark golfbanen “Goolfy”. Merk is geregistreerd in December 2007. Domeinnaam is eerder geregistreerd, namelijk in februari van dat jaar. Sinds november 2012 is domeinnaam in handen van verweerder. Sprake van verwarringwekkende overeenstemming en geen sprake van eigen recht of legitiem belang. Geschillenbeslechter wijst de eis toch af omdat de eis niet geschikt is om in de geschillenprocedure te behandelen. Er zijn aanwijzingen om kwader trouw aan te nemen, echter, er zijn ook aanwijzingen om aan te nemen dat er in dit geval (met betrekking tot overdracht van merkrechten en de rol van eventuele derden) meer aan de hand is.
“Having noted that, the Panel finds that aspects of this case together might be taken to suggest bad faith on the part of the Respondent. However, the Panel also notes indications in the record of a rather troubled and protracted history between the parties (and possibly the mentioned third party), in relation to the registration and use of various identifiers potentially relevant to this case, among others the transfer of the Trademarks. In light of this, as much as the Complainant’s case may well have merit, the Panel finds that in the end it is more suited to possible determination in court than within the abbreviated framework of the .NL Regulations. Proceedings under the Regulations do not lend themselves to extensive fact-finding by panels (see, e.g., Avenza Systems Inc. v. Exqte, WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0011).”
D2013-0310
easybook.com > Complaint denied
B) Eiser heeft Italiaans merk “Easy Book” sinds 1987 en biedt onder dat merk reisdiensten aan. Verweerder verkoopt onder de in 1996 geregistreerde domeinnaam e-books. Domeinnaam hoeft niet te worden overgedragen nu verweerder volgens geschillenbeslechter eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. Domeinnaam bestaat uit beschrijvende aanduidingen. De diensten die verweerder aanbiedt – het verkopen van e-books – hebben te maken met die beschrijvende termen, niet met de diensten (reizen) van eiser.
“The use of a domain name that is linked to the generic or descriptive value of the domain name may be considered a fair and legitimate use. See, e.g., Landmark Group v. DigiMedia.com, L.P., NAF Claim No. 285459 (a legitimate interest, on the part of a respondent, in a disputed domain name may be found “[if] the domain names have been registered because of their attraction as dictionary words, and not because of their value as trademarks”); National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Barry Preston, WIPO Case No. D2005-0424 (“A number of Panels have concluded that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of the complainant…It is clear, however, that the respondent must be using the domain name not in the trademark sense but in the descriptive sense, to communicate some aspect of the services offered.”); Havanna S.A. v. Brendan Hight, Mdnh Inc, WIPO Case No. D2010-1652 (“Prior decisions under the UDRP show there may well be a legitimate interest if the domain name is a generic word or a geographic indicator, provided it is not used to trade on the trademark owner’s goodwill.”). See WIPO Overview on WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.2.
In the case at hand there is a clear link to the generic or descriptive value of the disputed domain name and the use made by Respondent of it. Respondent is offering books for sale and not services or products which are similar to Complainant’s trademark. There are no indications that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to trade on the goodwill that may be linked to Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the evidence provided by Complainant that Respondent would be offering the disputed domain name for sale is not in itself, in the view of the Panel, conclusive.”
D2013-0253
daedousa.com > Complaint denied 
C) Eiser en verweerder zijn in 2007 met elkaar in onderhandeling geweest over het sluiten van een distributieovereenkomst. Verweerder zou daartoe de producten van eiser (Deado vechtsportartikelen) gaan verkopen in de VS. In al zijn enthousiasme heeft verweerder vóór het sluiten van de overeenkomst – dus tijdens de onderhandelingen – zonder goedkeuring van eiser de domeinnaam geregistreerd. Dit maakt echter niet dat er sprake is van kwader trouw. Eiser slaagt er niet in aan te tonen dat er sprake was van registratie te kwader trouw.
“It is clear to the Panel from the factual matrix in this case that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in contemplation of the commercial arrangement between the Parties coming into existence. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent either sought or received the Complainants’ permission to do so. However, there is no provision under the Policy or consensus among UDRP panels that registering a domain name in the absence of express authorization is per se bad faith, where that domain name is intended to be used, and ultimately is used, for a business venture between the trademark owner and the other party (see Recaro North America, Inc. v. Speedware Motorsports, WIPO Case No. D2010-0412).”
“In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainants have failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in terms of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel does not require to consider in detail the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name following the termination of the Distribution Contract. In reaching the above conclusion, however, the Panel takes no position on the merits of any contractual dispute that may exist between the Parties, and the finding in the present proceedings should in no way be considered as preventing the Complainants (or indeed either of the Parties) from seeking to pursue this matter through the courts, should they so choose. Furthermore, this Decision should not be regarded as in any way condoning or endorsing the Respondent’s conduct following termination of the Distribution Contract, nor should it be construed as a finding that the Respondent has not acted in bad faith in a wider context than that which the Panel may consider within the framework of the Policy.”
D2013-0260
purva.com > Complaint denied D) Indiase merkhouder “Purva”, Australische verweerder. Eis loopt stuk op kwader trouw omdat verweerder zes weken voor het indienen van de eis door eiser een merkaanvraag in Australië – ter registratie van het “Purva” merk - heeft gedaan. De geschillenbeslechter vertrouwt het echter niet geheel en geeft aan dat eiser de mogelijkheid krijgt om zijn eis opnieuw in te dienen wanneer door later gebruik van de domeinnaam blijkt dat de intenties (bij registratie van de domeinnaam) van verweerder te kwader trouw waren.
“While the Panel has found that the Complaint has failed under this, the third element of the Policy, the Panel has not found this an easy case to decide and recognises that it is conceivable that the Respondent registered the Domain Name, knowing of the Complainant’s trade mark rights and with the intention at some time to exploit those rights to his own advantage by bad faith use of the Domain Name. It is conceivable that although the trade mark application predated the Complaint, the Respondent had anticipated the Complaint and that the application was a sham designed simply to defeat the anticipated Complaint.
The Panel has sufficient doubts as to the Respondent’s intentions to recommend that if the Respondent’s future use of the Domain Name should suggest that the Respondent’s motivation at the outset was, as the Complainant has contended, in bad faith, the Complainant should be permitted to re-file the Complaint. In so recommending the Panel recognises that whether or not a re-filed complaint is to be accepted is a matter for the Center and the panel selected to decide the case.”
D2013-0120
nwolb-online.com > Complaint denied E) Erg voor de hand liggende uitkomst: geen sprake van verwarringwekkende overeenstemming tussen merk “Natwest” en domeinnaam www.nwolb-online.com. Ze lijken in de verste verte niet op elkaar. Eiser heeft niet onderbouwd dat zij merkrechten heeft (opgebouwd) op naam “nwolb”.
“Complainant argues that “nwolb” is an abbreviation of “Natwest Online Bank”. However, the Panel finds that Complainant fails to show that it has any (unregistered) trademark rights in the “nwolb” sign1. According to the Panel, the “nwolb” sign cannot be seen as confusingly similar to the NATWEST trademark. Complainant’s NATWEST trademark and the “nwolb” sign only share i) two characters, the letter “n” and the letter “w” and ii) the front position of the letter “n”. According to the Panel, Complainant’s NATWEST trademark and the “nwolb” sign expression are clearly distinct from each other. As a result the disputed domain name does not contain any distinctive element in which the Complainant shows to have rights. (See Viacom International, Inc. (“Viacom”) v. na, Max Crossan and Max Fret, WIPO Case No. D2008-2003)
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Because this is an essential element of the claim, it is not necessary to resolve the remaining factual disputes on the other elements. See Pet Warehouse v. Pets.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0105 (the panel needs not consider elements of legitimate interests or bad faith if complainant fails to establish enforceable rights in mark).”
D2013-0218
ticket-network.com > Complaint denied
F) Het merk van eiser “ticketnetwork” is later (in 2003) geregistreerd dan de domeinnaam (2001) van verweerder. Registratie te kwader trouw is dan in het algemeen haast niet meer aan te tonen. Deze uitspraak bevestigt het voorgaande. Eis wordt afgewezen wegens onvoldoende bewijs.
“In the present case, the Complainant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and that it has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to misdirect customers searching for the Complainant. As the disputed domain name was registered several years prior to the filing date of the Trademark, it was the Complainant’s responsibility to come forth with evidence demonstrating this contention, all the more because “ticket network” may be perceived as a generic term and the disputed domain name does not misspell the Trademark, but merely adds a hyphen. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Further, the Complainant has not demonstrated that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Although passive holding does not, as such, prevent a finding of bad faith, the Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith (paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0). In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to bring forward evidence justifying the conclusion that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The mere fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Trademark is in itself insufficient to find that customers are misled or that the website linked to the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant. This is even more so given that the designation “ticket network” may be perceived as generic. SeeTicket Software LLC v. MRWFX Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-0721.”
D2013-0320
rt.org > Complaint denied G) Eiser brengt al zo’n 10 jaar een christelijk blad uit onder de naam “The Real Truth Magazine” en meent daarom nu ‘common law’ merkrechten te hebben opgebouwd op de afkorting “RT” (afkorting van “Real Truth”). Voorwaarde hiervoor is dat eiser aantoont dat het publiek het teken “RT” met zijn producten en diensten associeert. Daarin is eiser niet in geslaagd. Geen sprake van verwarringwekkende overeenstemming dan wel kwader trouw. Domeinnaam rt.org hoeft derhalve niet te worden overgedragen.
“To establish common law rights as a trademark in the alleged RT Mark, Complainant must show the Mark acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with Complainant's goods or services. See First Place Financial Corp. v. Michele Dinoia c/o SZK.com, NAF Case No. FA 506772; see also CPP, Inc. v. Nokta Internet Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2008-0591 (holding that when relying on common law rights in UDRP proceedings, “the Complainant must adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claimed mark has in fact been used as a mark labeling goods or services and, through its use, attracted significant goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant's goods or services in a definable market.”); WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), at paragraph 1.7 (“The complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such “secondary meaning” includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition […] However, a conclusory allegation of common law or unregistered rights (even if undisputed) would not normally suffice; specific assertions of relevant use of the claimed mark supported by evidence as appropriate would be required.”). On the record here, the Panel agrees with Respondent, Complainant has not shown any rights in the alleged RT Mark.
To begin with, Complainant failed to provide the Panel with any evidence of its use of the alleged RT Mark for even a small amount of time, let alone a time sufficient to establish common law rights. See Koninklijke Nederlandse Springsstoffen Fabriek N.V. v. Kim Hyungho GMM, WIPO Case No. D2002-0707 (holding that “As long as there is no registration of the letters KNSF as a company name or a trademark [for Koninklijke Nederlandse Springsstoffen Fabriek], and the Complainant has not substantiated that the abbreviation has been used to such an extent that it has been generally known to the relevant commercial circuit as a trademark or trade name for Complainant, Complainant has failed to prove that he has rights in KNSF as a trademark.”) Rather, Complainant’s assertion of common law rights is based on bald assertions that the Mark has been in “commercial use, in association with The Real Truth Magazine” and that “The Real Truth” has been in circulation and used the “RT” mark throughout the U.S. and in other countries for 10 years”. So the best that Complainant can do is to try to piggyback rights for the alleged RT Mark on its claimed 10-year use of the term “The Real Truth Magazine”.”
D2012-2516
grupouninter.com > Complaint denied
H) Met betrekking tot de kwader trouw gaat eiser alleen in op gebruik van domeinnaam te kwader trouw. Bij de geschillenprocedure voor .com domeinnamen moet echter ook kwader trouw ten tijde van registratie worden aangetoond. Hier gaat de eiser in zijn geheel niet op in. Het is niet de verantwoordelijkheid van het panel om dat te doen. Eis wordt dan ook afgewezen.
“As the Rules clearly indicate, in order for the panel to adjudicate a domain name dispute, the panel must find that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In other words, the panel must examine separately two issues which takes place in different moments: 1) whether or not bad faith existed when the disputed domain name was registered; and 2) whether or not the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
It is not always easy to draw a clear line between these two circumstances, given that the former requires the evaluation of a static event, while the latter requires examining the dynamics of a conduct during a period of time. The Panel is also aware that in many instances, it is quite difficult to keep these two circumstances separate.
However, the Complainant has a duty to examine and argue both circumstances and it is not the panel's job to do so.
In the present case, the Complainant has only examined and argued that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, but said nothing and did not proffer any argument about the disputed domain name having been registered in bad faith.”
