WIPO-selectie maart 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: kwader trouw en een privacy service, afdoening onder A vanwege gebruik van onderscheidende toevoeging [sinds 1953], achternaam in combinatie met beschrijvend element, een dissenting opinion over gebruik van een acronym, gebruik van de naam van je dochter in een domeinnaam en een anekdote over iemands bijnaam die leidt tot legitiem gebruik.
D2011-1954 (privacy service)
mediaset.com > Complaint denied
Kwader trouw volgt niet (automatisch) uit een verborgen identiteit via een privacy service.
Onder C: According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s bad faith is supposed to result from the facts that the disputed domain name is inactive, that the Respondent’s identity is concealed by a privacy service, and that the MEDIASET Marks have a strong reputation. The Complainant also cites a few precedents, without, however, explaining why the Panel should rely on them. (...) In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s arguments are not sufficient to infer bad faith use. The Respondent’s identity was disclosed by the registrar upon receipt of the Complaint and thus already disclosed when the Complaint was amended. Furthermore, the use of privacy services in general is not to be objected. Only if a respondent uses a privacy service primarily in order to hinder legal proceedings, this may be an additional argument supporting bad faith behavior.
D2011-2239 (afgedaan onder A)
intervac-homeexchange.com > Complaint denied
Gebruik van het merk HOME EXCHANGE, maar mét de onderscheidende toevoeging INTERVAC. Dit levert geen overeenstemming op met het (beschrijvende) merk. Daarbij wordt die combinatie INTERVAC en HOME EXCHANGE reeds sinds 1953 gevoerd als handelsnaam.
Onder A: In this case, the Complainant’s HOME EXCHANGE mark is wholly incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name, but the other element in the Disputed Domain Name is the Respondent’s distinctive and coined word mark INTERVAC which precedes the words “home exchange” and has been used over a long period of time by the Respondent [red. sinds 1953 "to facilitate the exchange of teachers’ homes"].
D2011-2181 (surname)
hogueholsters.com > Complaint denied (surname)
Onder B: Complainant contended that it never consented to Respondent’s use of its HOGUE marks in the Domain Names, and that the addition of descriptive terms to Complainant’s well-known HOGUE marks did not legitimize Respondent’s registrations of the Domain Names. Respondent responded by indicating Hogue is his surname, a point which is not disputed, and that Respondent is entitled to use his own surname within the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide use.
D2011-1981 (dissenting opinion over een acronym)
ceat.com > Transfer with dissenting opinion (dissenting opinion)
Dissenting: In essence, what has happened in this case is that some 10 years ago and in fact on January 24, 2001, the Respondent, a company domiciled in Canada, registered as a domain name a 4-letter series of letters that can be described as an acronym. The acronym “ceat” is clearly well established, as the un-contradicted evidence is that it is in wide use as an acronym and as an abbreviation: according to the evidence, a Google search has shown over 12 and a half million third party results, which show that the word or grouping of letters is subject to wide use unconnected to the Complainant, although many other uses, of course, relate to the Complainant. Nor does the acronym seem to be a rare or remote one: the website of Acronym Finder5 has 8 verified meanings for the acronym “ceat”, none on which is the Complainant and the website Acronym Attic6 shows that there are 16 unverified meanings and that on a descending 3 star to 1 star rating, the Complainant’s name has a 1 star rating at number 11. None of this is meant to denigrate the Complainant or to diminish its standing, but it shows that the acronym has a reasonably wide use unconnected with the Complainant and therefore must have value as a word with at least some value unconnected with and independent of the Complainant’s trademark. Lees verder
zeeto.com > Complaint denied (soort surname)
Respondant legt aan de hand van een anekdote zijn bijnaam uit en het Panel accepteert dit als "surname"-verweer.
Onder C: The Respondent has submitted credible evidence that he has been commonly known by the name “Zeeto” since the early 1990’s. (...) The anecdotal explanation of his childhood nickname, combined with the registration of the disputed domain 23 months prior to the Complainant’s use and filing of the ZEETO GROUP and ZEETO trademark applications supports the conclusion that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark ZEETO. In fact, the Panel finds that the Complainant (pending such time as its trademark applications for ZEETO may occur) actually had no rights in the ZEETO trademarks, at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Accordingly, the Panel is prepared to find that, at the time of registration, Respondent did not act in bad faith, under the Policy. Since the date of registration of the disputed domain name in September 2005, Respondent has also not done anything inconsistent with a good faith adoption and use of an appropriate identifier for himself, including his e-mail address at XXXXX@zeeto.com, and for his business.
D2011-2068 (surname, eigen onderzoek arbiter)
mariahradio.com > Complaint denied
Complainant heeft het merk RADIO MARIA geregisteerd en de dochter van Respondent heet Mariah. Dit is geen cybersquatting waar een merk voor zakelijke doeleinde wordt geregistreerd. Dit is legitiem gebruik.
Onder B: What has emerged in the Respondent's Supplemental Filing, and has been ascertained by the Panel's personal research, is that Mariah is the name of the Respondent’s daughter. The Domain Name registered by the Respondent thus contains the name of its daughter, which is a common woman’s name, and the descriptive term “radio”. Based upon the facts apparent, this is therefore not a case of cybersquatting where a registrant merely wishes to exploit a trade mark for business purposes by registering a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a third party's trade mark.
Onder C: In the present case, the Domain Name incorporates the descriptive term “radio” in its entirety. The links posted on the Respondent's website and pointing to the websites of other radio stations are therefore merely related to the descriptive meaning of the term “radio”. The term “Mariah”, also incorporated into the Domain Name, being the name of the Respondent's daughter, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent is not taking undue advantage of the Complainant's trade mark.
The present case is not such that the Respondent deliberately created confusion to profit from the RADIO MARIA trade mark. On the contrary, the fact that “Mariah” is the name of the Respondent's daughter as well as a common woman’s name, and that the term “radio” is purely descriptive weighs heavily against a finding of bad faith.
En nog wat meer complaint denied/cancellations/.nl-domeinnamen:
D2011-2062 bahiadelduque.com > Complaint denied
D2011-2209
redbull-fx.com
redbull-fx.net
redbullfx.com
redbullfx.net > Cancellation
D2011-2049 sunjoy.com > Complaint denied
D2011-2225 phoenix-poland.com > Complaint denied
D2011-2222 redbullafterparty.com > Cancellation
D2011-2016 lobjet.com > Complaint denied
D2011-2124
calorifrioenlinea.com
caloryfrioenlinea.com > Complaint denied
D2012-0061
novotelbeachresorts.com
novotelmandalay.com
novotelyangon.com
phuquocnovotelresort.com
sofitelbeachresorts.com
sofitelmandalay.com
sofitelngapaliresort.com
sofitelphanthietresort.com
sofitelphuquoc.com
sofitelphuquocresortandspa.com
sofitelresortngapali.com
sofitelresortphuquoc.com
sofitelyangon.com
sofitelyangonhotel.com > Cancellation
D2011-2291
areva-uranium.com
avera-niger.com
avera-uranium.com > Transfer, cancellation in part
D2011-2270 affinitycard.com > Complaint denied
D2011-1950 solanum.com > Complaint denied
.nl-domeinnamen:
DNL2011-0076 oomsverzekeringen.nl > Transfer
DNL2011-0088 hollandcolours.nl > Transfer - DomJur 2012-827
DNL2011-0069 123inktwinkels.nl > Transfer - DomJur 2012-828
