юридическая фирма 'Интернет и Право'
Основные ссылки

На правах рекламы:

Яндекс цитирования

Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Deceuninck nvand Thyssen Polymer GmbH v. Dmitriy Beloussov

Case No. D2007-0347


1. The Parties

The Complainants are Deceuninck nv of Hooglede-Gits, Belgium and Thyssen Polymer GmbH of Bogen, Germany, both represented by Baker & McKenzie, Belgium.

The Respondent is Dmitriy Beloussov of Moscow, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <deceuninck-thyssenpolymer.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2007. On March 12, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 12, 2007, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 19, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 8, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2007.

The Center appointed Nicoletta Colombo as the sole panelist in this matter on April 25, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.


4. Factual Background

The first Complainant, Deceuninck nv, owns the trademark DECEUNINCK registered in Benelux on October 15, 1984 (No. 0402520) and has provided evidence of it.

The second Complainant, Thyssen Poylmer GmbH, is a worldwide, exclusive licensee of the trade mark THYSSEN POLYMER registered in Germany on January 9, 2003, (No. 30300964.0).

Both Complainants belong to the same group of companies “Deceuninck”.

The first Complainant had registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 27, 2003 but has not timely renewed the registration which elapsed on October 27, 2006.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 27, 2006. The Disputed Domain Name <deceuninck-thyssenpolymer.com> is active and redirects the Internet users looking for the trademarks of the Complainants to a porno graphic web site “www.omporn.info”.


5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend the following:

- the contested domain name consists of a combination of the words “deuceninck” and “thyssen polymer” which are identical to the respective trademarks of the Complainants which use the combination of the trademarks to advertise their activities;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainants nor has it been authorized by the Complainants to use the combination of their trademarks;

- the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for commercial use; on the contrary, the web site is being used to redirect the Internet user to pornographic and adult contests web sites and this circumstance is likely to tarnish Complainants’ trademarks and reputations;

- the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, in particular because it registered the Disputed Domain Name on the same day that the registration of the same, made by the first Complainant, had lapsed.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.


6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants have the burden of proving:

(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The domain name <deceuninck-thyssenpolymer.com> is made up of a simple combination of Complainants’ trademarks and also is identical to the domain name previously registered by the first Complainant and used by both Complainants.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainants state that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainants’ trademarks nor has it been otherwise authorized to use the Complainants’ trademarks.

Moreover, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and under these circumstances, finds that the Complainants have satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As proved, the Disputed Domain Name is used by the Respondent to attract Internet users to a pornographic website and this circumstance is commonly understood as registration and use in bad faith (see Prada S.A. v. Ms. Loredana Salvatori, WIPO Case No. D2007-0064 and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO Case No. D2003-0022).

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainants have proven bad faith in the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <deceuninck-thyssenpolymer.com>, be transferred to the first Complainant.

Nicoletta Colombo
Sole Panelist

Dated: May 9, 2007


Источник информации: https://internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2007/d2007-0347.html


На эту страницу сайта можно сделать ссылку:



На правах рекламы:

Произвольная ссылка:

Уважаемый посетитель!

Вы, кажется, используете блокировщик рекламы.

Пожалуйста, отключите его для корректной работы сайта.