WIPO-selectie juni 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: bekend Engels advocatenkantoor heeft onvoldoende bewezen dat ze rechten hebben; domeinnaam gebruikt uit wraak op oud-opdrachtgever; WIPO-procedure gebruikt om druk op verweerder uit te oefenen; naam van een parfum gebruikt voor website waarop IT-services worden aangeboden; parkeersite heeft legitiem belang bij domeinnaam; domeinnaam gebruiken wanneer men al eerder onder de naam uit het tweede level actief was; door panel niet afgestapt van principe dat sprake moet zijn van registratie én gebruik te kwader trouw; domeinnaam eerst gedoogd, geen kwader trouw; parkeersite die allerlei producten laat zien die niet samenhangen met de producten van eiser; toetsing Oki-data principes; geschil welke niet geschikt is voor beoordeling door het panel. De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie mei 2012.
De selectie is (deels) samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till Advocaten.
D2012-0972
blandyandblandy.com > Complaint denied 
Bekend Engels advocatenkantoor. Blandy en Blandy heeft onvoldoende aangetoond/bewezen dat ze rechten hebben in de naam Blandy en Blandy. Geen overeenstemming.
“In the Panel’s view, the evidence provided by the Complainant in respect of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is extremely weak. The Complainant states that it is seeking to rely on unregistered rights in the trade marks BLANDY AND BLANDY and BLANDY & BLANDY but does not provide the requisite detail to evidence that either mark has become a distinctive identifier associated with its business.”
D2012-0823
upjers.net > Complaint denied
Beëindiging freelanceovereenkomst. Domeinnaam gebruikt om wraak te nemen op oud opdrachtgever. Registratie te kwader trouw echter niet bewezen (te bewijzen).
“ The Panel is convinced that the Complainant is right in asserting that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of harming and tarnishing the Complainant’s trademark as a sort of revenge for the termination of the freelance contract.
However, the Panel was unable to find that the disputed domain name was also registered in bad faith. On the basis of the Complainant’s own oration, the Panel has to conclude that in the year 2010, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s consent. It appears that while the freelance contract between the Parties was in force, the Complainant explicitly agreed to the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. At least, the Complainant did not provide any facts indicating the opposite.”
D2012-0904
visibli.com > Terminated by Panel
WIPO procedure aanhangig gemaakt terwijl er ook al een procedure bij de rechter liep. WIPO-procedure door de eiser gebruikt om druk op de verweerder uit te oefenen. Panel besluit de procedure te cancellen en de uitspraak voor het publieke belang te publiceren.
“The Panel is aware that termination orders are generally not published, unless there are factors present which warrant publication (e.g., if publication is requested by the parties or there are public interest factors favoring publication). On the present facts, the Panel has decided to publish its decision for public interest. There is a pending lawsuit, which started prior to this Complaint. The fact that the Complainant has also brought the Complaint appears to be an unnecessary waste of legal resources, designed to put unnecessary pressure on the Respondent. Accordingly, the Complainant’s conduct is deserving of public censure. Additionally, because the pending court case is public, it is appropriate to make this decision public to ensure that the public record is complete.”
D2012-0654
shocking.com > Complaint denied
Beschrijvende, generieke domeinnaam. Naam van een parfum gebruikt voor een website waarop IT-services worden aangeboden. Voldoende voor aannemen eigen recht/legitiem belang. Eiser slaagt er niet in te bewijzen dat haar parfummerk wereldwijd bekend is.
Although the Complainant contended that the SHOCKING trade mark was very well-known at the time that the Disputed Domain Name was registered, the Panel notes that no evidence has been adduced by the Complainant in support of such contentions. Absent such evidence, and in light of the Respondent's assertion of good faith use as supported by a record of bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name for a number of years, the Panel is unable to find that the fame of the SHOCKING mark was such that the Respondent (a US-based entity) was more likely than not aware, or had knowledge, of the Complainant's mark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel is therefore unable to find that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and its SHOCKING mark when acquiring and using the Disputed Domain Name.
D2012-0533
eram.com > Complaint denied
Ondanks parkeersite toch eigen recht/legitiem belang bij domeinnaam.
“In this case the Panel finds, Complainant has not discharged its burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name created by its operation of a ‘parking’ service. This is a conclusion reached mindful of: the length of Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name (whether or not the issues of laches arises); evidence of third-party use of the term “eram” and of Complainant’s relatively weak trade mark rights outside its particular geographic and commercial field of use; and an absence of evidence of any intention on the part of Respondent to profit from confusion created with Complainant’s trade mark in that Respondent’s advertising does not prominently feature either shoes or apparel. Indeed, of the 84 links on the landing page at the disputed domain name, none can be said to target the goods or services offered by Complainant as none are for "shoes".”
D2012-0510
barclayleasing.net > Complaint denied
Eigen recht. Herhaling: domeinnaam mag worden gebruikt/niet te kwader trouw wanneer men al eerder onder de naam uit het tweede level (voor de .com) actief was. In dit geschil al sinds 2005 actief onder de naam Barclays Leasing. Pas sinds 2008 onder de domeinnaam. Derhalve geen kwader trouw.
“The Respondent, however, provided evidence in these Policy proceedings that it has been registered under the name Barclay Leasing Inc. with the Division of Corporations of the NYS Department of State since 2005 and that it has used the domain name <barclayleasing.com> to promote and offer its finance related services for many years and before any knowledge of the dispute. A respondent may refer to its own rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy if such respondent has used a name which corresponds to the second level of the disputed domain name in a business context before registering the disputed domain name (cf. CITGO Petroleum Corporation v. Matthew S. Tercsak,WIPO Case No. D2003-0003; AST Sportswear, Inc. v. Steven R. Hyken, WIPO Case No. D2001-1324; Penguin Books Ltd. v. The Katz Family and Anthony Katz, WIPO Case No. D2000-0204). In the present case, the evidence shows that the Respondent started doing business under the name “Barclay Leasing” in 2005 and has used the domain name <barclayleasing.com> on business equipment, inter alia forms, marketing postcards, business cards and other marketing equipment, since at least 2008. Furthermore, in the Panel’s opinion, the Respondent has convincingly asserted that it registered the disputed domain name in connection with its business for defensive purposes and that the advertising that was once displayed on the website at the disputed domain name had been added by its web hosting company and was removed immediately upon receipt of the Complaint. The Panel therefore accepts that the Respondent has used the name “Barclay Leasing” in the context of its business since before the disputed domain name was registered and that it therefore has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. As a consequence, the Complaint must fail.”
D2012-0498
saveme.com > Complaint denied
Door het panel wordt niet afgestapt van het principe dat er sprake moet zijn van registratie én gebruik te kwader trouw. Domeinnaam niet te kwader trouw geregistreerd (merk bestond nog niet) maar wel te kwader trouw gebruikt (parkeersite).
“There is a fatal flaw in the Complainant’s case, namely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1996, some 14 years before the Complainant started trading in 2010, and could not therefore have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.”
“This Panel respectfully adds its voice to those who decline to follow the Mummygold/Octogen approach and sees no reason to depart from the long-held and consistent view of UDRP panels (with the concomitant benefit of clarity and certainty for parties to UDRP cases) that paragraph 4(a)(iii) means what it appears to say, namely that the conjunctive “and” indicates that there must be bad faith both at the time of registration and subsequently.”
D2012-0828
frenchshabbychic.net > Complaint denied
Eigen recht/legitiem belang. Geen kwader trouw. Shabby chic is een aanduiding voor een interieurstijl. Domeinnaam eerst ‘gedoogd’.
Although the parties dispute who originated the “shabby chic” phrase and when, it is clear from the evidence of record and the Panel’s own Internet searching that “shabby chic” is used ubiquitously on the Internet by many third parties on their websites or in their domain names to describe an interior design style and a style of furniture and furnishings (e.g., <shabbychicchairs.com>; <shabbychicshoppe.com>; <shabbychicfurniture.com>; and <yourdecoratinghotline.com/country-shabby-chic>). With regard to furniture, for example, the style combines a “shabby” (e.g., by choosing furniture/furnishings for their appearance of age and signs of wear and tear or by distressing new furniture/furnishings to look like an antique), with a “chic” or “elegant” look. HGTV, a cable-television channel operating in the United States and Canada, sums up what is echoed on many websites: “Whether you call it cottage, English country or just plain romantic, shabby chic accessories and distressed furniture create a comfortably elegant home”. See “www.hgtv.com/shabby-chic-decorating/package/index.html”.
DTV2012-0007
natura.tv > Complaint denied
Domeinnaam normaal woord in het Fins. Parkeersite laat allerlei producten zien die niet samenhangen met de producten van eiser. Geen kwader trouw.
“In the present proceeding, Respondent has used a free parking page offered by its Registrar in association with a “nonspecific” list of products and services that bear no evident relationship to Complainant or its products. The Panel is unwilling to draw from these facts an inference that Respondent was attempting to take unfair advantage of Complainant and its trademark for commercial gain. The Panel reaches this conclusion in light of the fact that Respondent, at times roughly coextensive with his registration of the disputed domain name, registered two additional domain names meaning “nature” in at least one of the official languages of Finland, suggesting that he was not attempting to take unfair advantage of Complainant and its trademark. These acts are consistent with his assertion that he was reserving the domain names for some future use in connection with his claimed interest in the environment.”
D2012-0569
centralitassamsung.com > Complaint denied
Domeinnaamhouder heeft eigen recht/legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam. Oki-data principes worden getoetst. Website maakt een duidelijk onderscheid en er worden geen andere producten verkocht. Er wordt benadrukt dat de procedure bij het WIPO bedoeld is voor cybersquatting. Niet voor het oplossen van andere met de domeinnaam samenhangende geschillen.
“The evidence in the file shows that prior to having any notice of the dispute Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name corresponded to an offering of SAMSUNG products. The word “centralitas” added to the word Samsung in the disputed domain name apparently corresponds to the type of products Respondent appears to be offering through the disputed domain name, thus on its face the disputed domain name reflects the business conducted by Respondent under the disputed domain name. Complainant made no argument (and there is no evidence in the file) that suggests that Respondent might be using the website associated to the disputed domain name to promote and sell non-original SAMSUNG products or others’ products. Likewise, the Complaint makes no reference as to whether Respondent might be trying to “corner the market” in all relevant domain names and there is no evidence in the file that suggests that Respondent had engaged in such a pattern of conduct.”
Complaint denied concurring opinion:
D2012-0336
philippedagenais.com
philippedagenais.net > Complaint denied with concurring opinion
Geschil is niet geschikt voor beoordeling door het panel. Tussen partijen een overeenkomst gesloten die moet worden uitgelegd. Niet de taak van het panel. In de uitspraak uitleg waarom het panel die mening is toegedaan.
