WIPO-selectie juli 2012

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: niet-succesvolle faillissementsonderhandelingen over handelsnaamovername en registratie van domeinnaam na faillissement, aangevraagde merken, common law rights kunnen niet worden geconstrueerd en een genuanceerde zaak waarin bewijs, en hoe dat wordt verkregen en overlegd (wederom), een grote rol speelt.

De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie juni 2012.
DNL2012-0020 greencab.nl > Complaint denied

De Geschillenbeslechter begrijpt de stellingen van Verweerder aldus dat er in het verleden een andere onderneming op de markt actief is geweest, welke onderneming de handelsnaam “Green Cab” voerde. Nadat deze oudere onderneming in staat van faillissement is komen te verkeren, heeft Verweerder beweerdelijk zonder succes onderhandelingen gevoerd met de curator om de naam van de onderneming over te nemen. In dit scenario acht de Geschillenbeslechter het niet onaannemelijk dat Verweerder vervolgens heeft aangenomen dat de oude onderneming opgehouden is te bestaan, waarna Verweerder is overgegaan tot registratie van de Domeinnaam.

Daarnaast is het enkele feit dat de Domeinnaam (op initiatief van Eiser) te koop is aangeboden, onvoldoende om te kunnen concluderen tot registratie en/of gebruik te kwader trouw aan de zijde van Verweerder. De Geschillenbeslechter leidt uit de stellingen van Partijen af dat de Domeinnaam nooit (openlijk) te koop of te huur heeft gestaan, maar dat Verweerder na initiatief van Eiser een bedrag genoemd heeft. “Het vragen van een (hoge) verkoop of verhuurprijs is op zichzelf niet voldoende om kwade trouw aan te nemen”, Doka Nederland B.V. v. Media Village B.V., WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2010-0009.
 
DCH2012-0007 academia.ch > Complaint denied
D2012-0645 hitorque.org > Complaint denied
enD2012-0952 dksopeners.com, doorkings.com > Complaint denied

Aan merken die wel zijn aangevraagd, maar nog niet ingeschreven in de registers, kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend, dus dan worden klachten afgewezen. Uit de eerstgenoemde zaak onder A:

According to the case record before the Expert, the Claimant has a trademark application for registration of ACADEMIA and ACADEMIA SPRACH- UND LERNZENTRUM. However, contrary to the Claimant’s contention, the Claimant’s applications for the said trademarks are not granted, but still pending (status July 10, 2012). This means that the Claimant applied for the said trademarks before the Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property, but they are not registered yet.

According to the Swiss Trademark Protection Act (“MSchG”), the first person to file for the trademark will be the owner of that trademark (“principle of priority”), but such trademark right will only vest at the time it is entered in the trademark register (articles 5 and 6 MSchG). Hence, the filing of the trademark does not administer the possibility to enforce the trademark (see Christoph Gasser, in: Michael Noth/Gregor Bühler/Florent Thouvenin [editors], Commentary on the Swiss Trademark Protection Act, article 5 MSchG N 12). Thus, it can be noted that under Swiss law, where the trademark is not registered, no trademark rights can be alleged yet (see also Prom Night Events v. YourFormal Pty Ltd / Your Formal Australia Pty Ltd, Samir Kapoor, WIPO Case No. D2011-1707). In this regard, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (“IPI”) states on its website: “

As soon as the correctly filled-out form is received by the Institute, your mark is under so-called provisional filing protection which lasts until it successfully passes the examination and is actually registered as a trademark. In cases of a trademark conflict, the decisive date is that of the application and not the actual registration.” (https://www.ige.ch/en/service/frequently-asked-questions/trademarks/filing-procedure.html, last visited July 10, 2012)

D2012-0701bladelessfanonline.com > Complaint denied.

Een merk hoeft niet te zijn geregistreerd, want er zou een beroep kunnen worden gedaan op 'unregistered trademark', echter het panel kan gebaseerd op het bewijs dat is overlegd - spijtig genoeg, zegt zij zelf - geen common law rights construeren.

This is because the Complainant has no registered trade mark, national or otherwise, in respect of these words, and must therefore establish that they are capable of protection as an unregistered trade mark by virtue of the reputation attaching to them through usage and consumer recognition. The Complainant is certainly correct to submit that registration of a mark is not required for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP. On the other hand, it is still necessary under the formulation “a trademark or service mark” to show that the alleged mark, where it is unregistered, has nonetheless operated as a mark to identify goods or services associated with the Complainant. In the present case, the burden on the Complainant is even greater, in that the words “bladeless fan” are almost completely descriptive of the goods themselves, namely domestic fans without blades. (...)

Accordingly, the question for the Panel here is whether there is sufficient evidence before it to indicate that the expression “bladeless fan” has been used by the Complainant as a mark of origin possessing a secondary connotation in addition to, and separate from, its directly descriptive meaning. On the evidence originally filed, the Panel was unable to conclude that this was the case.

D2012-0718 intelsitio.com > Complaint denied

Een genuanceerde zaak. Het Panel concludeert dat geen van de partijen een 'good or bad faith intent' hebben bewezen, maar het is aan de Complainant om de drie elementen te  bewijzen. Omdat deze zaak meer neigt naar een merkinbreuk of oneerlijke handelspraktijk had de zaak voor een bevoegde rechtbank en niet aan het panel moeten worden voorgelegd. Aan het bewijs kan geen gewicht worden toegekend, omdat het niet duidelijk is hoe de screenshot van een "error 404"-page is gemaakt zonder in het bewijs de URL te overleggen.

Onder B:

The Panel is thus faced with a very finely balanced case. Neither of the Parties have demonstrated the Respondent's good or bad faith intent in selecting the disputed domain name to the full satisfaction of the Panel. The Panel reminds itself that according to the Policy, it is the Complainant who must prove each of the three necessary elements of the Policy on the balance of probabilities to the Panel's satisfaction, including that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In such a finely balanced case, where neither side is able to tip the balance in its favour, the Panel considers that the Complaint must fail on the basis that the Complainant has failed to carry its burden. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not proved that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

In concluding its observations on this topic, the Panel wishes to make several comments for the assistance of the Parties. In the first instance, it should be remembered that the Policy is of narrow compass and is intended to deal with cases of abusive cybersquatting. The present case strikes the Panel as a trademark infringement or unfair competition dispute rather than a complaint of abusive cybersquatting. As such, the proper forum is a court of competent jurisdiction. An administrative proceeding under the Policy does not provide a determination as to whether the activities of a respondent do or do not constitute infringement of a complainant's registered trademark. Accordingly, the Parties should note that the Panel's finding in the present case does not mean that the Panel is expressing the view that the Respondent is not infringing the Complainant’s rights in its registered trademark but merely that the dispute between the Parties does not on balance appear to be a case of cybersquatting.

Onder D: reverse domain name hacking:

The essence of the Respondent's case on this topic is that the Complainant has provided false evidence, has submitted misleading information and has concealed key elements of the Policy in order to deceive the Panel and the Center. As to the alleged false evidence, the Respondent first focuses on the Complainant’s provision of the <dsnextgen.com> screenshot to the Panel. The Panel believes that this is not fabricated evidence and that it is more likely than not that the Complainant reached the URL via one of the links provided on the “Error 404” page and thus produced the screenshot as a genuine example of what it saw on its screen. If this were not the case, the Panel would have expected there to have been some attempt to conceal the URL in the footer of the screenshot. Accordingly, the Complainant's only failure in the Panel's opinion was to specify how it reached the said URL, which resulted in the Panel being unable to attach any weight to it.

With regard to misleading information, the Respondent focuses on the fact that the “Error 404” page was presented by the Complainant as if it was a page published by the Respondent. The Panel considers that, while it is very regrettable that the Complainant did not identify the nature of the page, it was nevertheless generated by a broken link on the Respondent's website and thus that it was perfectly proper for the Complainant to place this in evidence. The Respondent goes on to state that the Complainant submitted no factual evidence to support its assertion that the Respondent's activity might lead Internet users into error. The Panel notes that a failure to provide supporting evidence to accompany a submission does not necessarily constitute an abuse of the administrative proceeding. In any event, the Complainant provided extremely detailed evidence as to the fame of its INTEL trademark which in itself constitutes factual evidence which may be taken as supportive of such an assertion.