WIPO-selectie november 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:
D2012-1359 Deels aanwezig zijn van merknaam in domeinnaam,
D2012-1894 Gebruik van "audicity" voor emailadressen al 10 jaar gaande
D2012-1781 Afwijzing vanwege contractuele geschil met voormalig dealer
D2012-1624 Beëindiging wederverkoopovereenkomst is contractueel geschil
D2012-1874 Nieuwe invulling Oki Data-wederverkoper; blog over producten merkhouder
D2012-1572 Dissenting opinion over generieke term 'priceshoes' (1 of 2 woorden)
D2012-1668 'Takeout' is beschrijvend voor afhaalmaaltijden
D2012-1893 Invullen aanvraagformulieren en facturen ontvangen, is nog geen merkenrecht
D2012-1701 Over een ongeldig verklaard merk en ongebruikte domein
en .NL-domeinnamen transfers: bmw-kopen.nl / mini-kopen.nl, sexhyve.nl en consumentembond.nl.
De vorige editie: WIPO-selectie oktober 2012 of via dossier domeinnaamrecht (linkerkolom). De selectie is (deels) samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.
WIPO 29 oktober 2012, D2012-1359
hurenscout.com
seitensprungscout.com > Complaint denied
Domeinnaam stemt niet verwarringwekkend overeen met een merk/handelsnaam. Slechts een gedeelte van de merknaam “scout” is aanwezig in de domeinnaam. Dit is zelf ook een beschrijvend element dat vaker op internet voorkomt en dit bezit dan ook geen onderscheidend vermogen. Anders was het geweest wanneer “scout24” (de volledige merknaam) was opgenomen. Dat is wel onderscheidend.
One must therefore determine whether they are confusingly similar. The only part of the disputed domain names which is identical is the word “scout”. The word “scout” as shown by the various definitions contained in common dictionaries, is essentially descriptive. The question is whether this essentially generic and descriptive word has acquired, in the present circumstances, a distinctive force, by itself. The Panel finds that today the word “scout” is widely used in the Internet to signify specific search activities. It is however just as often used by trademark owners other than the Complainants, and the word, by itself, is not perceived as more than pointing to specific search activities. It is the Panel’s view that to become distinctive, the word must be combined with a pre- or a suffix enabling the combination to acquire distinctive force as a name. This distinctive effect could be also achieved by other circumstances, such as the identity or similarity of products and services or through a combination of word and image.
WIPO 7 november 2012, D2012-1894
audicity.com > Complaint denied
Automerk audi. Verweerder gebruikt domeinnaam gedurende 10 jaar al vooral voor zijn e-mailadressen. Gebruik is om meerdere redenen niet te kwader trouw. Verweerder heeft de domeinnaam niet te kwader trouw geregistreerd. Het was niet te verwachten dat merkhouder die combinatie van woorden waardevol zou achten.
In this case the Respondent has provided a plausible reason for registering a Domain Name. It has maintained the registration for 11 years, and claims to have used the Domain Name extensively for personal purposes during that time. From 2001-2012 the term “Audi City” was not in common use and there was no reason for the Respondent to consider that the Complainant would find that combination of words valuable. The Respondent has never used the Domain Name for commercial purposes, nor has he attempted to sell the Domain Name.
WIPO 6 november 2012 D2012-1781
arcticspassaskatoon.com > Complaint denied
Merkhouder Arctic Spas tegen verweerder. Verweerder heeft domeinnaam ooit voor Arctic Spas Saskatoon (toen nog dealer van Arctic Spas) geregistreerd. Arctic Spas Saskatoon is niet meer, wel contractueel afgesproken voor overdracht van domeinnaam zorg te dragen. Verweerder heeft hier echter niets mee te maken. Afwijzing nu het vooral een contractueel geschil is.
Prior UDRP panels have rejected complaints where the dispute is primarily contractual in nature. See, Clinomics Biosciences, Inc v. Simplicity Software, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0823, where the panel found: “Prior decisions have rejected complaints where the dispute is primarily contractual and therefore outside the scope of the policy. See Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Pricilla Woodward and Charles R. Thornton, WIPO Case No. D2000-0006 (February 28, 2000). That appears to be the appropriate course here, where the dispute turns on the resolution of legal matters outside the scope of the Policy. In declining relief, I take no position on the merits of the fee or lien dispute that exists between the parties.
WIPO 17 oktober 2012, D2012-1624
dexpaninternational.com > Complaint denied
Domeinnaam was van wederverkoper van Dexpan. Door beëindigen van de wederverkoopovereenkomst is voldoende duidelijk dat verweerder geen eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. Eiser heeft echter onvoldoende aangetoond dat tijdens registratie sprake was van kwader trouw. Geschillenprocedure niet geschikt voor het oplossen van contractuele geschillen.
The Policy is directed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. See, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery , Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store, WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. As stated in Oki DataAmericas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, “It is important to keep in mind that the Policy was designed to prevent the extortionate behavior commonly known as Cybersquatting. It cannot be used to litigate all disputes involving domain names. The Thread.com, LLC v. Poploff, WIPO Case No. D2000-1470.” In the current case there is no evidence of any written agreement between Complainant and CPI t/a Dexpan International. Disputes about alleged breaches of oral agreements which may or may not have considered default, notice of default, remedies for default, termination for failure to remedy default, remedies after termination and the like are normally better suited for legal proceedings providing production of documents, discovery of documents and witnesses etc.”
WIPO 15 november 2012, D2012-1874
lisecharmel.org > Complaint denied
Eigen recht of legitiem belang. Oki data principles (D2001-0903 - voor wederverkopers etc.) nieuwe invulling/nadere uitleg criteria onder C. Website betreft namelijk een blog over de producten van de merkhouder die doorlinkt naar (specifieke pagina’s van) website van verweerder waar ook andere producten worden verkocht. Er is geen sprake van profiteren van het merk van de merkhouder, de verweerder handelt ook uit belang van merkhouder.
Applying factor (c) is more difficult on the particular facts of this case. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is as the Complainant portrays it effectively a “pseudo blog” and the Respondent admits that it is clearly for promotional purposes. This blog apparently only promotes genuine LISE CHARMEL products but also contains a link from each product displayed to the appropriate product page in the Respondent’s on-line retail store on which genuine LISE CHARMEL products are sold by the Respondent. The Complainant says that this amounts to the Respondent seeking to gain traffic or customers by using its mark and goodwill and then illegitimately switching them through to its website on which other products are sold. Although the Complainant may be correct that other products are sold from the Respondent’s on-line retail store, these other products are apparently not sold from the same pages (or, indeed, under the disputed domain name) on which the LISE CHARMEL products are sold. Does this amount to a sale of other sorts of trade marked products such as amounts to bait or switch selling for the purposes of factor (c)?”
In the Panel’s view this is rather a case of the Respondent seeking to promote and sell the complainant’s products in the interests of both parties. If the Complainant had really not wanted the Respondent to promote and distribute its products in this manner then it could have attempted earlier communication with the Respondent in this regard, or in the alternative it could have taken alternative legal action at any point over the last couple of years. This possibility may still be open to it, but if it wishes to do this then it is a matter for the courts and is beyond the scope of the Policy.
WIPO 30 oktober 2012, D2012-1572 
priceshoes.com > Transfer with dissenting opinion
De geschillenbeslechters zijn andere meningen toegedaan over de term ‘priceshoes’. Het bestaat niet uit één generieke term, maar uit twee. Is de term in zijn geheel dan wel zo generiek te noemen? En wordt de domeinnaam wel alleen gebruikt in samenhang met die term? De meerderheid vindt van niet en wijst de eis toe. Dissenting opinion: term is wel generiek, verweerder gebruikt domeinnaam wel om alleen schoenen en prijzen te vergelijken, verweerder dus wel eigen recht of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam en niet te kwader trouw.
Uit het oordeel van de meerderheid: via een time-limited historical Google search in 2005 had verweerder bekendheid met eiser opgeleverd, dus kwader trouw:
“Thus, the question remains, whether the Respondent would have discovered the Complainant and been put on notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights, had it conducted a minimal due diligence investigation through the use of a basic online search when it acquired the domain name in 2005. This question is made rather more difficult as the Complainant has elected to delay the filing of its Complaint for roughly seven years, and it is now harder to ascertain what a Google search might have returned within the relevant time frame.
That said, however, the Complainant has provided a time-limited historical Google search, showing hits which would have been returned on or around the date on which the domain name was originally registered (potentially by the Respondent’s predecessor-in-interest) in 2003. The Complainant’s website is the first hit in the search results, and thus (particularly absent any rebuttal or refutation of the Complainant’s evidence or arguments in this regard), it seems clear that a basic Internet search would have put the Respondent on notice of the Complainant’s rights in the PRICE SHOES term. The Complainant’s domain name had, at that time, been registered for roughly six years, and the Complainant had been conducting its business under the Price Shoes name for nearly ten years.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent.”
WIPO 18 oktober 2012, D2012-1668
takeout.com > Complaint denied
Domeinnaam uit 1999 en is sinds 2004 overgedragen aan verweerder. Eiser registreert “Takeout.com” in 2011 in ‘supplemental register’ als merk. Hiermee verkrijgt eiser niet automatisch merkrechten, dat moet worden bewezen. Daar is in het geval van eiser geen sprake van, geen bescherming op grond van UDRP. "Takeout" is beschrijvend en wordt veelvuldig gebruikt voor afhaaleten. Daarnaast sprake van reverse domain hijacking.
Finally, the Panel notes that there is substantial third party use of TAKEOUT.COM as well as the generic or commonly descriptive phrase “takeout.” “Takeout” is a term commonly used to describe food or a meal to be consumed away from its place of preparation. See, e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/takeout. It is sufficiently commonly used in that sense that the term also functions as a standalone noun, as in “I will go pick up some takeout”. The Panel finds that Complainant has no rights in TAKEOUT.COM as a service mark that could serve as the basis for this Complaint under the Policy.
WIPO 19 november 2012, D2012-1893 
kemosaberecords.com > Complaint denied
Eiser onderbouwt onvoldoende dat hij merkenrechten heeft, noch geregistreerd, noch op basis van common law. Invullen van aanvraagformulieren en ontvangen van facturen roepen geen merkenrecht in het leven.
“Complainant mentions the four ITU applications it has filed with the USPTO for various intended uses of KEMOSABE, but it has not asserted that the filing of those applications gives rise to trademark rights. “According to McCarthy on Trademarks, it is “fundamental to United States trademark registration practice that use must precede registration. Without use, there is no ‘trademark’ to be recorded on the Federal Register of marks. The ‘use’ necessary is use in the ‘ordinary course of trade, not just token use.’" PRGRS, Inc. v. BPB Prumerica Travel, WIPO Case No. D2002-0076. The most current USPTO records the Panel accessed online for Complainant’s ITU applications Serial Numbers 85568079 and 85568052 state as their status: “Notice of Allowance (NOA) sent (issued) to the applicant. Applicant must file a Statement of Use or Extension Request within six months of the NOA issuance date.” The most current USPTO record the Panel accessed online for Complainant’s ITU application Serial Number 77957028 states as its status: “A third request for extension of time to file a Statement of Use has been granted.” And the most current USPTO record the Panel accessed online for Complainant’s ITU application Serial Number 77957048 states as its status: “A fourth request for extension of time to file a Statement of Use has been granted.” Complainant has not really argued, let alone provided any evidence here to support a finding that the filing of, or notices of allowance for, its ITU applications give rise to trademark rights. See PRGRS, Inc. v. BPB Prumerica Travel, WIPO Case No. D2002-0076(denying complaint involving a pending ITU application and no evidence of use in commerce); see also True North Media, LLC and Good Universe Media, LLC v. 1soft Corporation, Greg Thorne, WIPO Case No. D2012-1457 (denying complaint involving a pending ITU application and no evidence of common law rights); Continental Casualty Company v. Andrew Krause / Domains by Proxy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0672 (denying complaint involving a pending ITU application and no evidence of use in commerce).
Furthermore, despite Complainant’s receipt of notices of allowance (“NOA”) for the four ITU applications, having failed to provide acceptable proof of use to the USPTO, these notices do not constitute trademark registrations. See the USPTO’s website at https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/tm_sec1btimeline.jsp (“The NOA is not a registration, but indicates that the mark will be allowed to register after an acceptable Statement of Use (SOU) is filed.”); see also Donald J. Trump v. eStore of New York, WIPO Case No. D2007-0119 (“In other words, an applicant for such a mark [an ITU applicant] not only lacks a federal registration but also represents (until it has filed a statement of use or an amendment to allege use with the United States Patent and Trademark Office) that it has not used the mark that is the subject of the application. ‘[T]he application[] merely establish[es] that, on the date that [it was] filed,… applicant intended to use the mark as a trademark. The[] [application] do[es] not, standing alone, evidence use of a mark.’ Viva Group, Inc. v. Peter Best, Jr., WIPO Case No. D2006-1151. See also Friends of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend v. B. G. Birt, WIPO Case No. D2002-0451 (denying complaint where “[n]o document showing actual use of the alleged mark is in the record”); and PC Mall, Inc. v. Pygmy Computer Systems, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2004-0437 (“Complainant may not rely on the constructive use date of its [intent-to-use] application”).)”
WIPO 29 oktober 2012 , D2012-1701
inventa.com > Complaint denied
Domeinnaam geregistreerd in 1995. Eigenaar had ook merkenrechten op ‘inventa’. Echter deze zijn sinds 2010 ongeldig verklaard. Website is ook niet beschikbaar. Panel kan hieruit echter niet opmaken dat de verweerder geen eigen recht of legitiem belang bij domeinnaam (meer) heeft.
Furthermore, in light of substantial and good faith use of the disputed domain name made by the Respondent to promote its business from 1996 to 2011, the Panel is unable to infer from the lapse of the trademark INVENTA of the Respondent and the current non use of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has lost its rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
.nl-domeinnamen
WIPO 2 november 2012, DNL2012-0030 
bmw-kopen.nl
mini-kopen.nl > Transfer
Geen eigen recht op of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam. Verweerder voldoet niet aan alle vereisten. Verweerder maakt onvoldoende duidelijk wat zijn relatie tot de merkhouder is. Het is onvoldoende om aan te geven dat de websites ‘een onderdeel zijn van "handelsprijzen.nl". Ook op DirkzwagerIE/IT, DomJur 2012-904.
The Panel, however, observes that the Respondent did not provide details on the websites under the disputed domain names that adequately inform potential purchasers about the fact that the Respondent is not an authorized reseller and has no authorized relationship with the Complainant. The mere fact that the home page of the websites under the disputed domain names mentions that “BMW kopen” and “MINI kopen”, respectively, are part of “Handelsprijzen.nl” is insufficient to be regarded as the required information with respect to the (absence of the) relation with the Complainant.
WIPO 7 november 2012, DNL2012-0058
sexhyve.nl > Transfer
De geclaimde domeinnaam sekshyve.nl heeft Hyves natuurlijk nooit echt in het bezit gehad. Waarschijnlijker is het dat deze domeinnaam Hyves nogal in de weg zat. De domeinnaam linkte namelijk door naar de website www.seks-book.nl; een website met voor zich sprekende inhoud. Wie wil daar nu mee worden geassocieerd? Ook op de Van Till-blog.
WIPO 12 november 2012, DNL2012-0063
consumentembond.nl > Transfer
Typosquatting. Bijzonder voor de hand liggend. Pay per click diensten op de website. Overeenstemming met merk, geen eigen recht of legitiem belang en gebruik/registratie te kwader trouw. Domeinnaam moet worden overgedragen.
