WIPO-selectie februari 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. De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie januari 2013 of via dossier domeinnaamrecht (linkerkolom). Ditmaal over:
A) Beëindiging omdat er al een gerechtelijke procedure aanhangig is.
B) Domeinnaam lijkt, maar linkt naar site van eiser, overdracht afgewezen, te lang gedoogd.
C) Inbreuk op IE-rechten buiten WIPO-procedure
D) Geschillenbeslechter oordeelt direct over registratie en gebruikt te kwader trouw
E) Uitleg over visies op geoorloofdheid klaagsites
F) Legitiem belang: te goeder trouw aanbieden van producten of diensten
G) Rechten op 'fine-tubes' niet met beeldmerk aangetoond
H) Sport 2000 niet als merk, maar wel door gebruik rechten verkregen, alsnog afwijzing
I) Eiser haalt ten onrechte Oki Data Principles aan
J) Plausibele verklaring van verweerder om deze 'dictonairy words' te gebruiken
De selectie is (deels) samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
D2012-2408
tadano.com > Terminated by Panel 
A) WIPO-procedure wordt op basis van artikel 18 van de regeling beëindigd omdat er al een gerechtelijke procedure aanhangig is. Japans bedrijf dat handelt in kranen, hoogwerkers en andere bouwbenodigdheden is merkhouder van het merk Tadano. De domeinnaam is in 1998 door verweerder geregistreerd. Verweerder was een gerechtelijke procedure gestart waarin hij vraagt om een verklaring voor recht dat hij geen inbreuk maakt op (en heeft gemaakt) op rechten van eiser. Ondanks dat de geschillenbeslechter sceptisch is over de haalbaarheid van de gerechtelijke procedure toch beëindiging WIPO-zaak.
“In the present case, the Panel is skeptical about the merits of the court proceedings. The grounds in the statement of claim seem rather lightweight. However, that conclusion is not one which the Panel can make definitively. If the Panel proceeded and found for the Complainant, the Respondent could still continue with the court case. For these reasons the Panel finds that publication of this Termination Order as a Decision is warranted. SeeDeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH v. Registrant [2828625] Laura Mouck /Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case Number D2010-0955 (“We simply record this so that any future panel considering a dispute between the same parties may wish to take these facts into consideration.”)”
D2012-2151
kariyer.com > Complaint denied
B) Eiser is grote speler in Turkse recruitment branche. Sinds 1999 actief onder de naam ‘Kariyer’ (Turks voor carrière) en sinds 2007 verschillende merken met daarin ‘Kariyer’ geregistreerd. Verweerder heeft domeinnaam verkregen in 2008. Domeinnaam wordt doorgestuurd naar website van verweerder. Op het eerste gezicht lijkt zaak duidelijk en in het voordeel van eiser. Echter wordt toch in het nadeel van eiser beslist. (Te) lang gewacht met actie ondernemen, nooit contact opgenomen met de voorgangers van verweerder over inbreuk etc.
“The Panel recognizes the apparent strength of the Complainant’s case and is aware that strongly descriptive words are capable of forming satisfactory distinctive trade marks. “Manpower”, for example, is a well-known brand in the employment field in Europe. However, the Panel is conscious that it is not competent to assess the strength of the Respondent’s argument that under Turkish law the Respondent is entitled to benefit from the prior use of the Domain Name by its predecessors; nor is it competent to assess the significance under Turkish law of the apparent fact that unlike the trade mark registrations for the device marks, the specification of the plain word mark omits employment services. The Respondent’s arguments in this regard appear plausible. The Panel reiterates that it has not helped that many of the parties’ supporting documents are in Turkish and have not been translated into English, the language of these proceedings. The Panel has in mind, in particular, the specifications for the Complainant’s trade mark registrations, which are worded entirely in Turkish.
Another aspect of the case, which has concerned the Panel, is that if the Complainant’s case under Turkish trade mark law is as strong as the Complainant asserts and if the damaging diversion of business has been as serious as one might expect with two such similar domain names operating in the same area of business and based in the same city (Istanbul), why has it taken the Complainant so long to raise complaint? The Complainant states that it was only recently that it became aware of the possibility that there was the scope for a complaint under the UDRP. That explanation surprises the Panel, given the Complainant’s long experience of online trading, but in any event it does not explain why the Complainant does not even appear to have gone so far as to have written a letter of complaint to any of the Respondent’s predecessors, even though the Complainant asserts that all of them were during their periods of ownership (and like the Respondent) making abusive, infringing and damaging use of the Domain Name.
Finally, notwithstanding this extensive period of allegedly unlawful, damaging use of the Domain Name, not only has the Complainant produced no evidence of having taken the matter up with any of the various registrants of the Domain Name prior to the filing of this Complaint, the Complainant has produced no evidence of confusion. The absence of any evidence of confusion, while surprising to the Panel, is not of itself fatal to the Complainant’s case, but in combination with the other factors leads the Panel to conclude that the Respondent’s arguments may be well-founded. The Panel simply does not know.”
D2012-2256
standrewsigc.com
standrewsinternationalgolfclub.com > Complaint denied
C) Eiser is vennootschap die onderdeel is van een trust die de merken van een zeer bekende en historische golfbaan beschermd. Verschillende merken met daarin ‘St Andrews’ zijn geregistreerd. Domeinnaam in 2010 geregistreerd. Verweerder ontwikkelt een golfbaan ergens in St Andrews. Er is sprake van een verwarringwekkende overeenstemming. Echter, eiser slaagt er niet in te bewijzen dat verweerder geen eigen recht of legtitiem belang bij de domeinnamen heeft.
In de uitspraak wordt nog benadrukt op dat de vraag of het gebruik van de naam in de domeinnaam inbreuk is op intellectuele rechten buiten de geschillenprocedure moet worden beslist.
“Whether the Respondent’s use is trade mark infringement is a matter to be determined elsewhere. As to “association”, again the Panel needs to tread carefully. The Complainant complains about use of certain references to it and its golf courses and history on the Respondent’s website and in its brochure. The Respondent maintains that the statements and images referred to by the Complainant’s are statements of fact which qualify as fair use of the relevant material. Again, the Panel makes no finding in relation to these matters in terms of passing off or trade mark infringement. It must, however, consider whether the Domain Names are used in connection with a bona fideoffering for purposes of the Policy on the available record before it.
The apparent services offered or to be offered by the Respondent is or will be golf and ancillary services. There is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the proposed services themselves (as opposed to the way they may be marketed, about which no finding is made) will be anything other than bona fide or genuine. Will golfers believe they are playing golf on one of the courses at St Andrews Links as opposed to St Andrews International, particularly when the Respondent’s marketing material (home page of its website) refers, for instance, to the fact that “St Andrews International Golf Club lies to the south of St Andrews, and is only one and a half miles from the heart of the 'Home of Golf'.”? Perhaps not. Will golfers feel misled because they are purchasing services from an entity describing itself as St Andrews International Golf Club, but it is not in St Andrews itself, but a few kilometers outside, such that it could be said that the goods and services are not a bona fide offering for purposes of the present Policy proceedings? Again, probably not. The Respondent’s development has been described, variously, as being “near” St Andrews or “on the outskirts of St Andrews” or (in a recent planning document) “by St Andrews”.”
D2013-0003
artek.com > Complaint denied
D) Eiser is Fins bedrijf dat is opgericht in 1935. Eiser is merkhouder van verschillende Artek nationale en international Artek merken. Canadese merk geregistreerd in 1997. Verweerder is een softwareontwikkelaar uit Canada die de domeinnaam heeft gekocht in 2010. De domeinnaam was geregistreerd in 1998.
‘Artek’ was vroeger een bekend zomerkamp in de Oekraïne voor padvinders uit de Sovjet-Unie waar verweerder zelf vroeger bij hoorde. Nu is het een kamp voor kansarme en hoogbegaafde kinderen. De zoon van verweerder is daar in 2007 heen geweest. Verweerder wilde domeinnaam gebruiken om foto’s en video’s van zijn bezoek daarop te publiceren.
Er sprake van overeenstemming tussen domeinnaam en merk, de vraag of er sprake is van eigen recht of legitiem belang wordt niet behandeld. Geschillenbeslechter oordeelt direct over registratie en gebruikt te kwader trouw: de eiser slaagt er niet in te bewijzen dat er sprake is van kwader trouw.
“With regard to the circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent has demonstrated by reference to the “Wayback Machine” that his original use of the disputed domain name was to publish videos hosted by YouTube which relate to Camp Artek. The Respondent has also provided some limited evidence (the price list and camp photograph) that he may have a personal connection to Camp Artek. The Panel would have preferred to see some further evidence from the Respondent regarding the preparations which the Respondent says that he has made since the hacking incident to develop his website on a local computer however on balance is satisfied that the Respondent’s answer to the case of passive holding is sufficient without the provision of this additional material. That said, the Respondent would do well to remember that the Complainant is likely to be watching closely when the website associated with the disputed domain name is finally published. Should it turn out not to be an educational project relating to Camp Artek but rather something targeting the Complainant’s rights in its ARTEK trademark, this may be considered sufficient to entitle the Complainant to a refiling of the Complaint (on the subject of which, see paragraph 4.4 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).”
D2012-2496
solutoscam.com
solutovirus.com > Complaint denied
E) Eiser maakt en distribueert software onder het merk ‘Soluto’. Merk is geregistreerd in 2012. Domeinnamen zijn in hetzelfde jaar geregistreerd. De ene domeinnaam is (nog) niet actief. Andere domeinnaam linkt naar een klaagsite waarop verweerder zich negatief uitlaat over de software van de eiser die zijn computer heeft laten crashen.
Verwarringwekkende overeenstemming, eigen recht/legitiem belang niet behandeld nu duidelijk is dat er geen sprake is van registratie of gebruik te kwader trouw. Eiser voert punten aan die niet in deze procedure aan de orde kunnen komen. Uitleg over visies op geoorloofdheid klaagsites. In dit geval te weinig bewijs om kwader trouw aan te nemen.
“In reaching the above conclusions, the Panel notes that the information available in the present record is sorely lacking. Many aspects of the case are unclear, including why the Respondent elected not to reply in the present action. Had the Complainant provided substantiating evidence to support its claims, it is possible that additional facts may have come to light. As it stands, however, the Panel finds that there are insufficient grounds to conclude that the Respondent registered or used the disputed domain names in bad faith, and accordingly, the Complaint must fail.”
D2012-2455
eyemagine.com
eyemagine.info > Complaint denied
F) Eiser merkhouder van ‘Eyemagine’ (beeld)merken sinds 2009. De .com domeinnaam is geregistreerd in 1996 en de .info domeinnaam is geregistreerd in 2010. De .com-domeinnaam werd gebruikt voor bedrijfswebsite van verweerder, .info wordt/werd gebruikt voor sociale netwerkwebsite (in aanbouw).
Verweerder heeft een legitiem belang bij domeinnamen: deze werden gebruikt voor te goeder trouw aanbieden van producten/diensten. Ook geen registratie en gebruik van de domeinnamen te kwader trouw. Eiser heeft onvoldoende bewijzen overgelegd.
“Accordingly, the Panel holds the following: Complainant is unable to establish the first factor (as Respondents did not have actual notice of Complainant or Complainant’s claims at the time of registration), second factor (for the same reason), or third factor (for the same reason). To the extent Complainant attempts to establish bad faith registration and use through the fourth factor, the Panel again finds the offered evidence unpersuasive. In particular, the Panel notes that (1) Respondents’ “social network” webpage is easily distinguishable from Complainant’s web development services and thus customer confusion is unlikely, (2) Complainant’s claims that Respondents are now competitors to web and mobile application development companies is at best a logical stretch, and (3) Complainant’s objections to Respondents’ use of an “icon of a human eye” adjacent to the mark seem, at face value, disingenuous, as both Complainant’s design mark and the distinct logo prominently featured on Complainant’s current website are easily differentiable from Respondents’ use of the “icon of a human eye.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). SeeStarwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, NAF Claim No. 0406512 (finding that the complainant failed to establish that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii)); see also Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Industrial Co., NAF Claim No. 0133676 (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith).”
D2012-2211
fine-tubes.com > Complaint denied 
G) Eiser slaagt er niet in aan te tonen dat hij rechten heeft op ‘fine-tubes’. Het is enkel als beeldmerk geregistreerd en beschrijvend voor de producten die hij en verweerder leveren. Eiser slaagt er niet in om eerste element aan te tonen: verwarringwekkende overeenstemming met merk.
“The Panel determines that Complainant has failed to establish that it has rights in a trademark to which the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
Complainant having failed at this first stage, the Panel will not consider the issues of rights or legitimate interests or bad faith registration and use.
This administrative panel decision turns on the question whether the combination term “Fine Tubes” may be exclusively appropriated as a trademark by Complainant for use in relation to those products. Relevant trademark office authorities in the jurisdictions where Complainant and Respondent are headquartered have decided that the term may not be registered as a trademark. Complainant recently withdrew its application to register that term following examination by authorities in the United Kingdom, where it is based. Complainant may eventually decide to reengage with UK or OHIM trademark authorities and relevant courts on this matter. It is not inconceivable that Complainant will succeed. But, this Panel defers to the present state of affairs before the relevant trademark office authorities, noting that there is no compelling reason to reject their judgment in this particular matter.”
D2012-2449
sport2000.com > Complaint denied
H) Eiser is houder van merken die de twee generieke woorden “Sport 2000” bevatten en is sinds 1988 actief in de retail in 25 landen (met meer dan 3.500 winkels). Verweerder is sinds 1998 eigenaar van de domeinnaam. Onder de domeinnaam staat parkeersite met veel links naar onder andere sportmerken en concurrenten van eiser.
Ondanks dat ‘sport 2000’ niet als merk is geregistreerd, heeft eiser toch rechten op de term ‘sport 2000’ gekregen aangezien door eiser veel zijn gebruikt in zijn bedrijf (bijvoorbeeld in domeinnamen); de domeinnaam stemt dus verwarringwekkend overeen met merk van eiser.
Echter, verweerder heeft eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam. Registratie van domeinnamen die een generieke term bevatten en handel daarin kan eigen recht of legitiem belang opleveren. Op de website worden advertenties getoond die te maken hebben met generieke termen ‘sport’ en ‘2000’. Het verzoek wordt afgewezen.
‘In the present case, the Respondent contends that its use of the disputed domain name constitutes a legitimate business practice under the Policy because the disputed domain name is comprised of wholly generic words, namely “Sport” and “2000”, and the website put advertising links related to its dictionary meaning. The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s not implausible assertion that the Respondent could not have known the Complainant or its trade mark, and further finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in a manner plausibly connected to its descriptive meaning could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the available record in this case. This is particularly true because of the length of time for which the disputed domain name has been registered. For these reasons the Panel finds that it has failed to discharge its prima facie burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant also seeks to identify a pattern of domain name registration by the Respondent involving domain names that are similar to well-known trade marks as a way of establishing the lack of rights of legitimate interests. The difficulty with this argument is that such a pattern, while it may lend weight to a finding of bad faith, is not strictly relevant to the issue of whether the Respondent has rights in this particular disputed domain name.’
DNL2012-0046
buffaloshop.nl > Complaint denied
I) Eiser is merkhouder van het merk BUFFALO voor schoenen. Merkregistraties zijn gedaan vanaf 1989. De domeinnaam is geregistreerd in 2007. Destijds is het gebruikt voor een webshop waarin computerspullen van het merk ‘Buffalo NAS’ werden verkocht, nu verwijst de domeinnaam naar een onderdeel van de webshop waar die spullen nog worden verkocht.
De domeinnaam is identiek aan / overeenstemmend met merknaam van eiser. Echter eiser slaagt er niet in aannemelijk te maken dat verweerder geen eigen recht of legitiem belang heeft bij de domeinnaam. Argumenten daartoe slagen niet. Hierbij maakt het niet uit dat de domeinnaam niet actief was op het moment dat eiser vroeg om overdracht. Verweerder voldoende duidelijk gemaakt dat zij te goeder trouw producten onder de domeinnaam wilde aanbieden/aanbiedt.
Eiser haalt ten onrechte Oki Data Principles aan om aan te tonen dat verweerder geen eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. Deze criteria spelen pas een rol wanneer de merkhouder van de computerspullen (Buffalo NAS) een WIPO-procedure tegen verweerder aanhangig maakt.
“It should be noted at this point that, whether or not the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name would comply with the Oki Data requirements, it is highly questionable this would be a relevant factor for the present dispute.2 The Respondent’s compliance with the Oki Data requirements could be a relevant issue if the underlying Complaint would have been filed by Melco Holdings, Inc., who owns the BUFFALO trade mark for the BUFFALO NAS equipment, but it is not relevant in relation to a different BUFFALO trade mark like the one owned by the Complainant (cf. article 6:163 of the Dutch Civil Code which sets forth that there is no obligation to repair the damage on the ground of a tortious act if the violated standard of behaviour does not intend to offer protection against damage as suffered by the injured person (Schutznorm doctrine).”
D2012-2193
anydoc.com > Complaint denied 
J) Eiser en verweerder uit de Verenigde Staten. Eiser is sinds 2003 houder van het merk ANYDOC. De domeinnaam geregistreerd in 2001. Sinds die tijd heeft de site verschillende invullingen gehad. Van 2002 – 2006 voor een Brits bedrijf, een parkeersite en nu niks. Verweerder is sinds 2006 domeinnaamhouder.
Er is een identieke verwarringwekkende overeenstemming, verweerder heeft geen eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de de domeinnaam, verweerder was niet op de hoogte van het merk van eiser ten tijde van registratie en derhalve is er geen sprake van te kwader trouw. Er is meer nodig dan een (niet bekend) merk om kwader trouw aan te nemen. De verweerder heeft een plausibele verklaring voor de keuze van deze woordenboek-woorden vanwege het potentiële gebruik om juist deze woorden als domeinnaam te registreren.
“The Respondent denies being aware of the Complainant or its brand in 2006, and the Response includes the mandatory signed certification of completeness and accuracy. The Respondent’s denial is plausible. The Complainant’s mark is based on two common words, which have generic as well as trademark signification. The Complaint refers to the “fame” of the mark, but the evidence in the record relates to industry recognition and website awards rather than to advertising in mass media, stories in popular print and broadcasting outlets, or sales in retail chain stores. The Complainant’s branded products are specialized kinds of business software, not consumer items. There is no evidence that the Respondent was ever involved in the purchase or sales of such business software, and the stated business plan for the Domain Name concerned a consumer information website about medical professionals, an entirely unrelated business. (The Respondent’s registration of other domain names appropriate for similar consumer information websites also supports the Respondent’s account, even though those websites were not developed.) There was no reported contact between the parties until more than three years after the Domain Name was registered. Thus, the Panel finds that there was no particular reason that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s brand in 2006.
The Complainant cites UDRP decisions finding bad faith on the basis of “constructive notice” of a registered mark (particularly if both parties are located in the United States, where the constructive notice principle has been applied in trademark law), constructive knowledge (the domain name registrant “knew or should have known” about the mark), or “willful blindness”. As explained in WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.4, most panels have declined to find bad faith solely on the basis of constructive notice or similar grounds, and this Panel similarly concludes that the Policy requires more to establish bad faith than the existence of a registered trademark. Moreover, this proceeding does not involve a factual pattern similar to those that typically ground a finding of bad faith on the theories of constructive notice, constructive knowledge, or willful blindness, such as a record of cybersquatting, irresponsible bulk registrations, famous brand names, highly distinctive marks, or other indications that a denial of awareness of the mark is improbable or inexcusable. Id., paragraph 3.4. The few examples cited by the Complainant of questionable domain name registrations by the Respondent are inconclusive, and there is no indication in the record that a court or UDRP panel has determined that the Respondent is a cybersquatter or engaged in automated bulk registrations. The mark at issue is not demonstrably “famous,” the Domain Name at issue consists of dictionary words, and the Respondent plausibly selected it for a relevant potential use. In the Panel’s view, the facts of this case do not warrant an inference of bad faith on the basis of constructive notice, constructive knowledge, or willful blindness."
