WIPO-selectie augustus 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. Ditmaal over:
A) De letters 'sm' staan (in de combinaties) niet op zichzelf
B) Oudste merk is van een datum ná het door eiser overlegd bewijs van actief gebruik van de domeinnaam
C & D) Klaagsites over natuurlijke personen om te waarschuwen voor deze personen, eis afgewezen
Deze selectie is samengevat door Sara Biersteker, Van Till advocaten.

D2013-0818
sm.net > Complaint denied
A) Spaanse eiser vs. verweerder uit Hawaii. In de merken van eiser wordt de lettercombinatie 'sm' gebruikt in combinatie met de woorden 'fundacion' en 'edizioni'. De letters 'sm' staan niet op zichzelf. De geschillenbeslechter is dan ook van mening dat de letters 'sm' op zich in deze combinatie geen onderscheidend vermogen hebben. Domeinnaam stemt dan ook niet verwarringwekkend overeen met het merk. De eis strandt derhalve op het eerste vereiste.

The overall impression resulting from these trademarks can however not be considered to be only and predominantly influenced by the combination of the letters “sm”. The distinctive element of the semi-figurative trademarks is their design. While it is true, that, as regards the word trademarks FUNDACION SM and EDIZIONI SM, the terms “fundación” – the Spanish term for “foundation” – and the term “edizioni” – the Italian term for publishing – are descriptive, this does still not mean that the two letters “sm” are distinctive enough to be confusingly similar to the disputed domain name; quite to the contrary. ”

D2013-1017
reckon.com > Complaint denied
B) Australische eiser vs. Italiaanse verweerder. Verweerder heeft zich niet verweerd tegen de eis. Eiser heeft meerdere Australische en Nieuw Zeelandse merken die bestaan uit het woordenboekwoord 'Reckon'. Oudste merkrecht is uit 2007. Verweerder heeft sinds 2005 de domeinnaam onder zich. Eiser verwijt de verweerder sinds 2008 geen actieve website meer onder de domeinnaam te hebben. De website is echter, zoals blijkt uit het door eiser zelf overgelegde bewijs, vanaf 1996 tot 2007/2008 actief gebruikt. Dit is voor de geschillenbeslechter een aanwijzing dat de domeinnaam te goeder trouw is geregistreerd. Eiser graaft in feite zijn eigen kuil. De door de eiser aangehaalde uitspraken wijken grotendeels af van de casus zodat deze niet opgaan. Er is geen sprake van gebruik en registratie te kwader trouw. De eis wordt afgewezen.

For it to be “clear” that a respondent registered and is using a domain name in bad faith, one would expect to find some evidence indicating (whether directly or indirectly) that the respondent in question was targeting the complainant at date of registration of the domain name. If the brand in question is a dictionary word and the evidence in support of the bad faith contention is wholly circumstantial, the burden on the complainant is likely to be greater than if the brand in question is a made-up distinctive name.

“In this case, as can be seen from the factual background in section 4 above, the Complainant’s evidence from the Internet Archive WaybackMachine all points the other way. It appears from that evidence that “Reckon” is (or was) a computer brand of e-group Italia S.p.A. and that the website to which the Domain Name was connected from 1996 to 2007/2008 was a website of e-group Italia S.p.A., promoting that brand.

The Panel finds that the probability is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the benefit and with the approval of the Italian company, e-group Italia S.p.A., the proprietor of the “Reckon” brand of computers, and that the Domain Name was used for the benefit of e-group Italia S.p.A. until about 2007/2008. Since then, the Domain Name has not been used, the Registrar’s WhoIs contact details have not been kept up-to-date and the Respondent has moved on.
(...)
The Complainant’s bad faith contention is based entirely on the fact that since 2008 the Domain Name has not been connected to an active website and relies solely upon two propositions, which it claims to be applicable to this case, namely:

1. “passive holding of a domain name in which a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests may amount to bad faith use” and “passive holding interspersed with sporadic or intermittent use can also ground a claim of bad faith use.”

2. “the providing of false contact details or the failure to update contact details can be determinative of bad faith use and registration in cases of ‘passive holding’.”

The first point to note is that in so contending the Complainant ignores its own evidence as to the use that was made of the Domain Name from 1996 to 2007/2008, which strongly suggests to the Panel that the Domain Name was registered in good faith.”

D2013-0940
youssryhenien.com > Complaint denied
C) Klaagsite. Eiser is de natuurlijke persoon Youssry Habib Henien uit Dubai. De domeinnaam bestaat – gedeeltelijk – uit zijn naam. De domeinnaam is geregistreerd door verweerder op 17 februari 2012. De website wordt gebruikt om de wijze waarop eiser – die in het dagelijks leven hoofd is van de BNP bank voor het Midden-Oosten en Afrika – zijn functie uitoefent te bekritiseren. Op de website worden anderen voor Youssry Henien gewaarschuwd. Nu de website o.a. geen commercieel doel dient, niet concurreert met eiser en direct duidelijk is dat de website niet van eiser afkomstig is, wordt door de geschillenbeslechter aangenomen dat verweerder een eigen recht op of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. De eis wordt afgewezen.

“The website at the Disputed Domain Name appears to be a classic criticism website. The content is openly critical to the Complainant’s business conduct, comprising of a statement warning others from doing business with the Complainant and also providing a link to a United Kingdom court judgment between the parties. Moreover, the Respondent’s actions does not show evidence of “misleadingly divert[ing] consumers” for commercial gain. Under the Policy, to “misleadingly divert consumers” refers to the kind of confusion that arises, for example, when a competitor diverts consumers to its site and, potentially, diverts sales. A person or entity merely with an interest oppositional to that of a mark holder is not considered a “competitor” in competition with the complainant for the provision of goods or services (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma a.k.a. Sahaja Yoga v. Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network and SD Montford, WIPO Case No. D2001-0467). While the Respondent has interests against the Complainant, there is no indication of an attempt to misleadingly divert consumers by offering goods and services that compete with those of the Complainant.

In addition, the Respondent has not shown an intent to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark for commercial gain. As stated in paragraph 3.11 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, tarnishment in this context normally refers to such conduct as linking pornographic images or wholly inappropriate information to an unrelated trade mark. It would not normally extend to the mere posting of information about a complainant, or to the posting of genuine, noncommercial criticism regarding the trade mark holder. In this case, the Respondent’s activities appear to be directed towards noncommercial speech, to which the Respondent believes is well-founded. This does not appear to be the case of a commercially motivated criticism by or on behalf of a competitor of the Complainant. Further, upon reaching the website at the Disputed Domain Name, it is immediately apparent to Internet users that the website is not operated by the Complainant. As a result, the Panel does not find that the Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name for commercial gain with intent to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark.”

D2013-0939
harryhenien.com > Complaint denied
D) Klaagsite. Vergelijkbaar met zaak hierboven: Eiser is de natuurlijke persoon Harry Henien uit Dubai. De domeinnaam bestaat uit zijn naam. De domeinnaam is geregistreerd door verweerder op 17 februari 2012. De website wordt gebruikt om de wijze waarop eiser – die in het dagelijks leven Director is van een wealth management company – zijn functie uitoefent te bekritiseren. The content is openly critical to the Complainant’s business conduct, comprising of a statement warning others from doing business with the Complainant and also providing a link to a United Kingdom court judgment between the parties. Nu de website o.a. geen commercieel doel dient, niet concurreert met eiser en direct duidelijk is dat de website niet van eiser afkomstig is, wordt door de geschillenbeslechter aangenomen dat verweerder een eigen recht op of legitiem belang bij de domeinnaam heeft. De eis wordt afgewezen.

The second view is that irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trade mark as part of a domain name of a criticism site if such use is fair and noncommercial (“View Two”).

In this case, the Panel is inclined to follow View Two.

Under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, in order to satisfy the Panel that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent must show that it is making a legitimate noncommercial and fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to (i) misleadingly divert consumers or (ii) tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The website at the Disputed Domain Name appears to be a classic criticism website. The content is openly critical to the Complainant’s business conduct, comprising of a statement warning others from doing business with the Complainant and also providing a link to a United Kingdom court judgment between the parties. Moreover, the Respondent’s actions do not show evidence of “misleadingly divert[ing] consumers” for commercial gain. Under the Policy, to “misleadingly divert consumers” refers to the kind of confusion that arises, for example, when a competitor diverts consumers to its site and, potentially, diverts sales. A person or entity merely with an interest oppositional to that of a mark holder is not considered a “competitor” in competition with the complainant for the provision of goods or services (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma a.k.a. Sahaja Yoga v. Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network and SD Montford, WIPO Case No. D2001-0467). While the Respondent has interests against the Complainant, there is no indication of an attempt to misleadingly divert consumers by offering goods and services that compete with those of the Complainant.