Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

UDRP

UDRP procedure. The bad faith complainant: when the chances of success are so low that the applicant should not have taken action

Written by Dreyfus11/05/2020

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Jan. 30, 2020, No. D2019-2937, Scalpers Fashion, S.L. c/ Dreamissary Hostmaster

 

The Spanish company Scalpers Fashion is active in the fashion industry. It is the owner of numerous trademarks incorporating the “Scalpers” sign, including the European Union trademark “Scalpers” No. 6748578, registered on September 29, 2008. The company has filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <scalpers.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights. The domain name was registered on September 15, 1997, by the Respondent Dreamissary Hostmaster, who is in fact a natural person, a U.S. citizen and the holder of a substantial number of domain names featuring dictionary words. The domain name at issue was exploited to generate pay-per-click revenues by leading to sponsored links referring to the sale of tickets. At the time the complaint was filed, the domain name in question resolved to a parking page.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent intends to take undue advantage of its reputation in fashion and to disrupt its business. In addition, the Complainant submits that the large sums proposed by the Respondent in various attempts t negotiate are evidence of his bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent allegedly offered initially $150,000 and then $195,000. Finally, the Complainant considers that the Respondent’s bad faith is manifested by the registration of more than 100 domain names, for him to be able to resell them for a profit.

The Respondent contends that he registered and used the domain name <scalpers.com> because of the definition of the word “scalper”: a person who buys tickets at the normal price and then resells them at a high price when demand is high and available seats are scarce. In addition, the latter requires the expert to conclude to reverse domain name hijacking.

The Complainant’s position was not followed by the expert. The expert considers that the domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent had registered the domain name more than 10 years before the Complainant’s alleged date of first use of the “Scalpers” trademark. In such circumstances, there was no basis to conclude that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark, which was not in existence at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. As regards the use of ???, the expert also concluded that there was no bad faith, since the Respondent had used the domain name for the meaning of the word “scalpers”. The expert ruling on the case indicates that the complaint should be dismissed. In addition, he stated that the complaint was filed in bad faith by the Complainant, and was intended to deprive the Respondent of ownership of his domain name. Indeed, several facts contribute to the expert’s position: the domain name was registered by the Respondent long before the Complainant owned a trademark right in the Scalpers sign; the UDRP Complaint was filed after two unsuccessful attempts to purchase the domain name from the Respondent; and the Respondent’s counsel notified the Complainant that the complaint should be withdrawn due to the manifest impossibility of establishing bad faith.

The Complainant clearly should have known that the complaint could not succeed. Thus, it should be borne in mind that the UDRP procedure is not a one-way tool. The aggrieved Respondent may attempt to reverse the proceedings to obtain a decision against the Complainant. Here, the lack of chance of success was particularly blatant, as the domain name predates the trademark rights of Scalpers Fashion.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More
  • 1
  • 2
Contact
Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach