Webinar April 7, 2020: Internet and Compliance (part 1)

Written by Dreyfus15/04/2020

Webinar : Internet and Compliance (part 1)

The rules of the game have changed,

strategies to protect the company and its leaders.

The legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints (resulting in particular from the Sapin 2 Law, the LCEN or the EU
Directive of 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers) that weigh on companies are increasingly rigorous. Companies must implement a governance policy capable of minimizing their responsibility and exposure to their customers, shareholders and the competent authorities.

Among the aspects to be considered in the context of this compliance are domain names. While they are an undeniable corporate asset, they are also vectors of risk: phishing, fraud against the president, fake sites, identity theft, forged e-mails, and so on.

In the event of a breach, they can also damage the reputation of the company and its managers, resulting in a loss of customers. It is therefore imperative to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate the dangers, react effectively in the event of an attack and ultimately protect the company.

The current situation linked to the coronavirus epidemic is increasing the risks, with the number of frauds increasing considerably while companies are disorganized and vulnerable.

We propose to analyse these issues with you, sharing our experience. In particular, we will be able to answer the following questions:

– What are the obligations of companies with regard to compliance?

– What are the risks to be anticipated?

– What strategies should be implemented to do so?

– What are the control points?

– What levers should be implemented to react effectively in the event of a proven breach?

Proceedings for invalidity and revocation before the INPI

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2020

As of April 1, 2020, it is now possible to bring actions for cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks at the French trademark Office –INPI.

Among the new developments resulting from the implementation of European Directive 2015/2436 of December 16, 2015, (known as the “Trademark reform Package”) into French law, the new procedures for the cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks are those that will undoubtedly change the landscape of intellectual property law in France.

The European directive placed an obligation on member states to create an administrative procedure to bring invalidity and revocation proceedings. The aim of this measure being to facilitate challenges to registrations in order to declutter the trademark register.

In France, since April 1, 2020, these actions can be brought before the French Trademark Office INPI, bringing French trademark law increasingly closer to European law. Until now, only the Court was able to hear these cases. From now on, the competence is shared between some specialized courts and the INPI.

How is this to be done?

The division of competences is set out in Article L.716-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. With the exception of applications for invalidity based on a prior Copyright, Design right or Personality right (which must be brought before a competent judicial Court), INPI has exclusive jurisdiction for applications for invalidity where no other legal issue arises based on an absolute ground, and applications for invalidity (again where no other legal issue arises) based on the following relative grounds :

– A trademark right

– A corporate name

– An appellation of origin or geographical indication

– The name of a local authority or public entity.

The judicial court has exclusive jurisdiction over counterclaims for invalidity or revocation of rights, applications for invalidity or revocation of rights on any grounds whatsoever where the application is connected with another action falling within its jurisdiction and, finally, applications for invalidity of rights brought as a principal claim on the following relative grounds:

– Copyright

– Design

– Personality rights.

In order to avoid any delaying measures, it is provided that the principle of “res judicata” will apply to such decisions of the Director of INPI and of the judicial court.

The French legislator has gone beyond the provisions of the European Directive, which only requires Member States to confer jurisdiction on the Trademark Offices with respect to certain grounds of invalidity (invalidity based on absolute grounds or on an earlier similar or identical trademark).

Which trademark registration can be challenged?

An application for invalidity or revocation may be filed against a registered French trademark or on the French part of an international trademark.

What is the procedure before the INPI?

Like the new trademark opposition procedure, the invalidity or revocation procedure follows the principle of a fair hearing. Following the examination phase, which starts from the day on which the action was filed, and as soon as the action is considered admissible, the owner has a period of 2 months to submit his observations in the case of an invalidity action or to provide proof of use in a revocation action.

The applicant has then one month to file a response. The parties may make up to three contradictory written exchanges at the end of which, and where appropriate, an oral presentation of the observations may be requested by either party but also requested by the INPI.

Depending on the number of exchanges carried out, this investigation phase may last between two and six months. The INPI then has a maximum period of three months to render its decision.

Thus, the total duration of the procedure should last a maximum of nine months from the date of notification of the action to the adverse party, which is much faster than the legal action hitherto open to the applicant.

A stay of proceedings may be requested jointly by the parties for a period of four months, renewable twice. It may also be suspended at the initiative of the INPI, in particular pending the receipt of information and elements likely to have an impact on the outcome of the dispute or the situation of the parties.

Finally, unlike court proceedings, the applicant need not demonstrate a specific legal interest. This will therefore allow a greater number of actions and give rise to new strategies for the release of rights.

In conclusion, the introduction of these new administrative procedures by the implementation of the “Trademark reform Package” in France provides a fast and inexpensive procedure, against a registered nuisance trademark avoiding the much more restrictive judicial process.

Domain name registration by an unauthorized distributor: importance of the trademark holder’s behavior in assessing good faith

Written by Dreyfus10/04/2020

The French company Adventure is specialized in the sale of paramotors. It owns the French semi-figurative trademark including the terms “adventure” and “paramotor” as well as the domain names “paramoteur.com” and “adventure-paramotors.com”.

The company has filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <adventureparamotorsusa.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights.

The domain name was registered on March 14, 2018, by respondent Mike Robinson who acted as the Complainant’s authorized reseller for the United States. The domain name offered the Complainant’s products and services for sale. Due to the low level of sales generated by the Respondent in the United States, the Complainant decided to terminate the dealership agreement and instructed the Respondent to stop using the domain name <adventureparamotorsusa.com>.

The dispute between the parties arises as a result of the Respondent’s refusal to comply with this request. Indeed, the latter is ready to close the website on the condition that the complainant pays him $10,000, a sum that would represent the investment made by the Respondent for the construction of the website.

The French company maintains that the website associated with the disputed domain name was created by the Respondent without the prior express authorization of the Complainant.

The Complainant’s position is not supported by the expert, who considers that it fails to demonstrate that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The expert states: “the domain name was registered on March 14, 2018, the month the parties entered into their commercial agreement. It is also the month when the parties met to discuss the agreement (…). The panel assumes that the parties must have discussed during that March 2018 meeting the means by which the Respondent planned to promote the Complainant’s products in the United States (…). After all, the plaintiff must have known that the defendant would have an online presence and, usually trademark owners are concerned about whether these marketing elements (…) are in line with the image of the trademark. Similarly, the expert notes that “in none of the exchanges (…) between the parties during the term of the agreement did the Complainant argue about the registration of the domain name by the Respondent”.

The various exchanges between the protagonists show that the Complainant’s only reproach to the Respondent is that the latter continued using the domain name after the termination of the Concession Agreement, and not the registration of the domain name per se. Therefore, the Complainant does not prove in any way that the domain name was registered in bad faith. According to the expert and in view of the content of the exchanges between the parties, the Respondent did register the domain name in good faith for the purpose of promoting and selling the Complainant’s products under its trade agreement.

The expert ruling on the case concludes that the complaint should be dismissed.

In addition, he also states that the complaint was filed in bad faith by the Complainant, seeking to deprive the Respondent of ownership of its domain name.

Indeed, the UDRP procedure is not a tool for deliberately depriving a respondent of a domain name in circumstances that are outside the policy of the procedure.

In regards to the facts of the case, the Complainant clearly should have known that its complaint could not succeed since the respondent had registered the domain name in good faith.

Thus, great care must be taken with regard to the portfolio of domain names related to the company name or trademarks, as these are valuable assets. Drawing up a restrictive naming charter makes it possible to prevent as far as possible any dispute regarding the ownership of names that may arise with business partners.

Dreyfus firm, an expert in trademark law, can help you with the management of your domain names and trademarks portfolios.

UDRP Procedure: abuse of right or, when the complaint is brought in bad faith

Written by Dreyfus09/04/2020

Advice Group is an Italian company founded in 2006 and specialized in marketing. It is based in Turin but has offices in Rome, Bari and subsidiaries in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Portugal, Colombia and Peru.

Having noted the registration of the domain name <advicegroup.com> by a third party, the company turns to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for its transfer. The domain name was reserved in 2014 by Michele Dionia of Macrosten LTD, located in Cyprus. The domain name resolves to a page of commercial links and suggests that the name may be for sale (Internet users can make an offer).

The Respondent did not respond to the complaint.

The expert acknowledges the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the applicant’s Italian semi-figurative trademark, “A Advice Progressive Marketing Thinking”.

However, he decides not to rule on the issue of legitimate interest, referring to his observations on the issue of bad faith. Nevertheless, he makes several observations on the legitimate interest, in favor of the Respondent: the terms that make up the domain name are generic and the Respondent did not make active use of the name, he simply let the registrar promote its services and included a message advising Internet users to contact the registrant for the purchase of the name.

The expert also obviously did some research on his part, which he is not bound to do, since he notes that there are many companies called Advice Group throughout the world.

Concerning bad faith, the expert insists on the fact that at the time of the registration of the name, the applicant had not yet registered a trademark. The filing took place nine months after the reservation of the name in question and the obtaining of rights, two years later! Nothing suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering this domain name consisting of dictionary terms. Moreover, the fact that Internet users could propose the purchase of the name does not mean that the aim of Macrosten LTD was to resell it at a high price to Advice Group.

Thus, not only is the complaint rejected, but the expert also decides to qualify the complaint as a case of “reverse domain name hijacking”, i.e. it is considered that the complaint was filed with the sole purpose of depriving the domain name holder of the domain name. Here, the Complainant accused the Respondent of cybersquatting even though no evidence to that effect was provided and the name, consisting of generic terms, predates the Complainant’s trademark registration.

It should be remembered that proving the bad faith of a registrant when the domain name consists of generic terms is difficult. It is essential to show that the registrant had the applicant’s trademark in mind. In the present case, it can be assumed that even if the Complainant’s trademark had been older, this would not have been sufficient to ensure the success of the complaint. The setting up of a site similar to that of the Complainant or for the same activities, or contact made by the registrant are elements that make possible to constitute a relevant case . Here, the Complainant had no evidence to justify his position.

Dreyfus firm, an expert in trademark law, can help you by offering you unique online trademark management services.

UDRP procedure: impossibility for a trademark owner to request the transfer of a domain name after its sale

Written by Dreyfus08/04/2020

The Swiss company Blockwords AG, formerly known as Swiss Future Project AG, operates an encryption exchange under the sign SCX, which was registered as a Swiss trademark on December 19, 2017.

The company has filed a UDRP complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for the transfer of the domain name <scx.ch>, alleging, among other things, that it infringes its trademark rights.

This domain name was registered on April 23, 2001 and acquired by the Swiss company in March 2018. In March 2019, the name was transferred to the company SwissClass Trade AG, which subsequently sold it to the Respondent in the same month for more than EUR 60,000.

The Swiss company claims that a fraud was committed when the domain name <scx.ch> was transferred to SwissClass Trade AG due to the absence of two signatures from Blockworks AG which would have made the transfer legal.

In addition, it considers that the transfer of the domain name is the result of a mismanagement on the part of a former member of the board of directors. Ultimately, the complainant fears misuse of the domain name by the Respondent although the latter has not changed the services offered on the website in question, which remain those of the Complainant.

The Respondent explains that it is incomprehensible that the Complainant would want to recover the domain name. Indeed, the Complainant sold the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG, which was free to resell it to the Respondent at a later date. Therefore, the Respondent believes that it was not at fault and that the issue is between the Complainant’s management and SwissClass Trade AG and not between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant’s position is not supported by the expert who believes that there was no fraud in the sale and transfer of the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG since the sale was signed by two legal representatives of the Complainant’s company. Therefore, the applicant cannot both sell its domain name and subsequently request its transfer. Furthermore, the expert did not accept the argument of mismanagement by one of the former members of the company’s board of directors, due to insufficient evidence.

The expert acknowledges, however, that the situation raises some questions: why did the Respondent purchase this domain name for more than 60,000 euros and what was its intention, even though it could immediately see that the name referred to a third party’s site?

The expert concludes that the complaint should be rejected. Due to the complex facts of the case, he is of the opinion that a judicial procedure would be more appropriate to gather the various pieces of evidence and to rule on them.

This scenario once again illustrates two problems. The first concerns the internal management of domain names: optimal security must always be ensured so that there is no risk of losing control of the names. The second issue related to the fact that UDRP is not an appropriate forum for all disputes. In the present case, it seemed clearly impossible to resolve the dispute between the parties without ruling both on the relationship between Blockwords AG and SwissClasse Trade AG and between Swiss Classe Trade AG and the Respondent.

CJEU: Relief of the burden of proof on the territorial scope of use of a trademark

Written by Dreyfus07/04/2020

The CJEU rendered a crucial decision in its recent Intas caseon the maintenance of Intellectual Property rights. According to the Court, it is not imperative that a European Union (EU) trademark be used in a substantial part of the EU. On the contrary, its use in a single Member State could be enough to prove genuine use.

In the matter before the CJEU for the mentioned decision, the claimant filed a trademark application before the EUIPOconsisting of the sign “INTAS” and designating goods in classes 5 and 10.

The defendant subsequently filed an opposition to this application claiming that it was similar to two of its earlier trademark registrations which both consist of the sign “INDAS” and cover goods in the same classes.

The claimant requested proof of use of the earlier trademarks. The defendant duly submitted this evidence and its opposition was accepted by the EUIPO on this basis. The claimant proceeded to appeal the decision before the EUIPO, but its appeal was dismissed. Finally, the matter was brought before the CJEU.

The territorial scope for genuine use

The CJEU examined the question of whether proof of use submitted for only one Member State for the use of an EU trademark was sufficient to support its genuine use pursuant to Article 47(2) of the EU TM Regulation.

Interestingly, the CJEU rejectedthe argument that the territorial scope of the use of an EU trademark cannot be limitedto the territory of a single Member State. The Court also rejected the argument that the genuine use of an EU trademark necessitates that the trademark be used in a substantial part of the EU.

Yet, the CJEU still admits that it is reasonable to expect that an EU trademark shall be put to use in a wider area than the territory of one Member State to show its genuine use. However, the Court underlines that it is not always imperativethat the trademark be put to use in an extensive geographic area because evaluation of genuine use is an overall assessment. It depends on all the characteristics of the related goods or service, and not only on the geographical scope of the use.

The CJEU accepts that, in certain cases, the market for the goods or services in the scope of an EU trademark can be restricted to the territory of only one Member State. In such a case, proving serious use of the EU trademark within that State may satisfy the conditions for genuine use.

Assessment of genuine use

The CJEU holds that it is impossible to determine, a priori, a certain territorial scope when assessing if the use of an EU trademark is genuine or not. Rather, an EU trademark is deemed to be genuinely usedwhere it is used in accordance with :

– its essential function of designating origin for the related goods or services ;

– the objective of maintaining or creating market sharesin the EU.

When evaluating genuine use, the following factors should be taken into account: the characteristics of the relevant market; the nature of the goods or services within the scope of the trademark; and the scale, territorial extent, regularity and frequency of use.

Impact of the Decision

This is an important interpretation made by the CJEU affecting the burden of proof when it comes to showing the genuine use of an EU trademark. The CJEU clearly sets forth that the territorial scope is only one of several factors to consider when assessing whether the trademark is put to genuine use or not.

This does not mean that the territorial extension of the trademark’s use is not important at all. However, the CJEU affirms that the geographical extension of the trademark’s use is not the only factorto take into account. This assessment depends on all the facts and circumstances relevant in determining if the commercial use of the trademark creates or maintains market sharesfor the concerned goods or services.

Consequently, the CJEU held that the assessment of whether the use of a trademark is genuine or not is an overall assessment. The territorial scope of the use is only one factor in this assessment, amongst the other factors mentioned in this article. This interpretation will probably lead to changes in the strict perception that the genuine useof an EU trademark cannot be proven with showing its use in one single Member State. It will soften the burden of proof on the trademark owners.

Resolving IP disputes through Mediation in France

Written by Dreyfus06/04/2020

Dreyfus & associés, in association with INTA, had the pleasure of organizing a breakfast debate last February.

The theme of the breakfast debate was the following:

“Resolving IP disputes through Mediation in France“.

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution on the rise in different fields of law, notably in intellectual property law. This alternative dispute resolution is an efficient mechanism to settle disputes. In the long term, resorting to mediation in intellectual property law might encourage parties to maintain or create business relationships (licensing, distribution contract, etc).

We had the opportunity to debate on:

– What are the pros and cons of mediation relating to intellectual property disputes?

– What are the obstacles to mediation for IP disputes?

– What is the process for mediation?

– Who is the mediator?

– How much does it cost?

– Future of mediation in intellectual property law

The event featured Rémi Garros-Quinn, a Legal Case Manager at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, and Berengère Clady, Case Manager – Head of ADR Department, at the Centre for Mediation and Arbitration of Paris (CMAP). It was hosted by local IP law firm Dreyfus & Associés.

Find here the note published in INTA Bulletin.

What happens to trademark and design-related IP rights post-Brexit?

Written by Dreyfus24/03/2020

The Withdrawal Agreementwas recently ratified by the United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) Parliaments. Therefore, the UK and EU now enter into a transition period until 31 December 2020. In theory, the “divorce” will be finalized by December 31, 2020. The Withdrawal Agreement sets out the impact of Brexiton trademark and design-related IP rights.

The Future of Trademarks Registered Before 31 December 2020

The UK Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) will automatically create a comparable UK trademarkregistrationfor EU trademarks that have been registered before 31 December 2020, without any examination. This procedure imposes no feeor administrative procedureon EU trademark owners.

The comparable UK trademark registration will have the same filing date or priority date and will cover the same goods and services as the corresponding EU trademark.

In addition, the first renewal date of the comparable trademark will be the same as that of the corresponding EU trademark. The trademark owner will need to pay separate renewal fees both to the EUIPOand the IPO for a renewal.

Trademarks that have acquired a well-known status in the EU before 31 December 2020 will still be able to enjoy their well-known status in the UK until this date. The trademark owner will thereafter have to prove that the trademark is well-known in the UKin order to be able to continue benefitting from this status in this territory.

EU trademark owners will also not need to appoint a trademark attorney/representative in the UK until three years after 31 December 2020.

Applications for EU Trademarks Still Pending on 31 December 2020

The applicants of EU trademark applications that are still pending on 31 December 2020 will benefit from a priority right to file the same trademark application before the IPO within nine months following the end of the transition period. This application will have the same filing date and will cover the same goods and services as its corresponding EU trademark.

Trademark’s use

Under UK law, trademarks that have not been in use for a full period of 5 years from their registration date are vulnerable to cancellation. This will still apply to trademarks that will be created on the basis of EU trademarks after 31 December 2020.

However, where this 5-year period includes a period before 31 December 2020, use of the trademark in the EU will be taken into account regardless of whether this use is in the UK or not. Where this 5-year period includes any period after 31 December 2020, the trademark will need to be used in the UK.

Registered Design Rights

Similarly to the case with trademarks, the IPO will automatically create a comparable UK design registration for Community designs that have been registered before 31 December 2020, without any examination. This new registration will have the same priority and registration date. It will also have the same renewal date as its corresponding EU right. This procedure aims to impose no additional fees or administrative burdens on the right holders.

The case of deferred designs in the process of being registered as at 31 December 2020

Designs in the EU are often registered once they have been published, but publication may be deferred for up to 30 months from the filing date. A registered design whose publication is deferred until 31 December 2020 will be treated as a pending application.

This means that the holder of a design can retain the same filing and priority dates in the UK by filing a corresponding design registration application within nine months of 31 December 2020. This application will not be subject to further examination by the IPO.

To sum up, Brexit will have a certain impact on the owners of intellectual property rights related to trademarks and designs registered with theEUIPO. Although the main objective is to maintain the status quo for right holders after Brexit, right holders will still need to review their portfolio of intellectual property rights to ensure their continuation in the UK following Brexit.

Bad faith, a requirement that is duplicated between registration and bad faith use

Written by Dreyfus19/03/2020

While one generally refers to the “three criteria” of the UDRP (a trademark similar to the domain name; the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the defendant in the disputed domain name; and the bad faith of the registrant), it should be kept in mind that bad faith in UDRP matters has two aspects: the first is bad faith registration and the second is bad faith usage. Therefore, proving only one of these elements is insufficient even though it may be considered “fair” that a name used in bad faith should be transferred to the applicant.
In the present case, Great American Hotel Group, Inc. complained that its former vice-president retained the domain name <greatamericanhg.com> and changed the password of the account used to manage this name with the registrar.

It all started in 2011 when the applicant decided to adopt the name Great American Hotel Group. Its president at the time asked Mr. Greene, then vice-president of the company, to reserve the domain name <greatamericanhg.group>.
The latter did so, but – apparently without notifying his superior – reserved the domain name in his name instead of that of the company. He did, however, record the company’s postal address, and pay with the company card. In 2012, he hired an anonymity service to hide his data.

Since its registration, the name had been used for the company and Mr. Greene had always treated the domain name as part of the company’s assets.

However, following disagreements, Mr. Greene was suspended from office in 2015 and dismissed in 2016. In 2017, the name was renewed by the company’s technical teams even though Mr. Greene was no longer present. However, the latter subsequently changed the password so that the name could no longer be renewed by the company. The applicant’s counsel proceeded to send Mr. Greene a letter of formal notice, which remained unanswered, leading to the filing of a UDRP complaint.

The panellist acknowledged that the applicant had common law trademark rights through the use of the sign “Great American” and that the registrant did not have any legitimate rights or interest in the name as it was created for the applicant company.
He also acknowledged that the domain name was used by Mr. Greene in bad faith.

Nevertheless, the panellist was more sceptical regarding the issue of bad faith registration. Indeed, the name had been reserved by Mr. Greene at the request of the president of the applicant company, which, in principle, had, in fact, been a registration in good faith.

In order for registration by an employee to qualify as having been done in bad faith, the panellist specified that the employee must have, from the beginning, had “an intention to cause harm”. Therefore, the evaluation must be factual and done on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Mr. Greene had registered the domain name in his own name. The panellist found that “this may be subject to questioning, and the fact that he did not mention the company does not constitute a good domain name management practice”, however, the president and the company seemed to be equally as uninterested in formalizing the reservation of the name.

For four years, until he was suspended from his functions, the registrant had always displayed conduct that demonstrated that he understood that the name belonged to the company. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that by reserving the name four years earlier, he had intended to compete with the applicant or to benefit from some type of tactical advantage against him.

Consequently, the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed as the registration in bad faith had not been established. Nevertheless, the panellist specified that the applicant could turn to other avenues to try to obtain relief.

The significance of this decision, in addition to highlighting the dual condition of bad faith, is that it reiterates the need to set up an internal naming charter to avoid any dispersion of assets, both in terms of trademarks and domain names.

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Sept. 2, 2019, No. D2019-1638, Great American Hotel Group c/ Domains By Proxy, LLC / R Greene

Claiming unregistered trademark rights on a geographical name is a difficult challenge in UDRP proceedings

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2020

While certain geographical names may, by exception, benefit from protection within the meaning of the UDRP rules, it should be remembered that they must be perceived as a trademark or service mark over which the applicant has rights. However, the mere use of a geographical name to identify certain goods and services as a territorial entity is not sufficient to demonstrate rights in a trademark or service mark within the meaning of the Guidelines, as the pannelist rightly pointed out in the present Decision.

In this case, the geographical name Solothurn (‘Soleure’ in French), corresponding to a city in Switzerland, was reproduced in its entirety in the domain name <solothurn.com>. It was registered in 1997 and has not been used since except to redirect to a “pay-per-click” page.

The applicants, the City of Solothurn and two associations under Swiss law promoting mainly tourism and unsurprisingly showing a strong interest in the domain name <solothurn.com>, claimed an unregistered trademark right on the sign “Solothurn”, which has been used extensively over the years. They also claimed protection of the name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition.

In this regard, they provided several documents attesting to the use of this geographical name by tourists since 1890 and its recognition as such. The applicants inferred that the use of the sign “Solothurn” constituted a trademark used to identify tourism and other related services. They also cited several decisions of the centre concerning geographical names, which are far from having argued in their favour.

The defendant, domiciled in the United States and known for his activities related to domains specializing in “geographical” domain names, had put the domain name <solothurn.com> up for sale. The defendant cited numerous decisions on how geographical names should be assessed (including a decision about the name <rouen.com>) and on the need to fulfill the function of a trade-mark.

Faced with this case and the question of whether the applicants could validly claim an unregistered trademark right in the name “Solothurn”, the panellists carried out a meticulous examination of the case law of the decisions of the WIPO panellists (overview) in the field of geographical names.

In particular, they recalled that according to the overview, “geographical terms used only in their ordinary geographical sense, except when registered as trademarks, do not, as such, provide standing to act in UDRP proceedings”. They also noted that in UDRP matters, it has generally been difficult for affiliates or entities responsible for a geographical territory to demonstrate trademark rights over that geographical name. However, the panellists noted that the decisions cited by the applicants all acknowledged that the geographical name was used in a purely descriptive way of a geographical location and not as a trademark.

On the other hand, they took note of the fact that some panellists have indicated that an unregistered trademark right in a geographical name may be granted to an official authority in exceptional circumstances. The circumstances in question cover the increasingly rare assumption that the geographical name would be used in connection with products and services but without any connection to the geographical location to which it corresponds. The idea is that the trade name should not generate an association with a geographical location in the minds of consumers, but rather an association with products and services, as the main function of the brand requires. For example, we can mention the products of the Ushuaïa brand, unrelated to Tierra del Fuego.

In the present case, the panellists noted that the applicants had not provided any proof of use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with products and services beyond those provided by the City of Switzerland. On the contrary, the applicants merely pointed out the use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with the name of the city of Switzerland and the tourist activities offered there. Consequently, the panellists could not validly conclude that the applicants had established that they had rights in the unregistered Solothurn trademark.

The panelist added that the applicants could not rely on the protection of this name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition insofar as Article 4.a. (i) of the Guidelines expressly refers to the “trade or service mark”.

Finally, the complaint was rejected as the applicants had not provided proof of trademark rights. However, this decision seems to be qualified by the panellists, who point out that it is a decision rendered under the UDRP principles, adapted to disputes between registrants and trademark owners whereas the solution could have been different under Swiss law and in matters of unfair competition.

The “morality” of this decision is not new; the UDRP procedure is not suitable for all disputes involving domain names and should not be systematically preferred to legal proceedings, even if it does have the advantage of being faster and less costly.

WIPO WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, July 25, 2019, No. D2019-1164, Einwohnergemeinde Solothurn, Verein “Region Solothurn Tourismus”, Verein “Katon Solothurn Tourismus” c/ M.A. Stenzel,

Intellectual Property