юридическая фирма 'Интернет и Право'
Основные ссылки











Яндекс цитирования

Рассылка 'BugTraq: Закон есть закон'



Rambler's Top100



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

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ICDAS Steel, Energy, Shipbuilding and Transport Industries Co. v. Domain Admin, RegistrarAds, Inc

Case No. D2008-1272

 

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ICDAS Steel, Energy, Shipbuilding and Transport Industries Co of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Ortan Hukuk BГјrosu of Istanbul, Turkey.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, RegistrarAds, Inc of Vancouver, Washington, United States of America.

 

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <icdas.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a Dotregistrar.com (the “Registrar”).

 

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) by email on August 20, 2008, by fax on August 21, 2008, and in hard copy on August 26, 2008.

The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar by email on August 21, 2008. The Registrar replied by email on August 22, 2008, stating that it had not received a copy of the Complaint, that the Domain Name was registered with it, that the Respondent was the current registrant of the Domain Name, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) applied to the registration, that the registration would expire on May 29, 2009, that the Domain Name was on Registrar-Lock status, and that the registration agreement was in English and contained a submission to the jurisdiction of the courts at the registrant’s domicile or where the Registrar was located. The Registrar also provided the contact details on its Whois database in respect of the registration.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, with copy to the Registrar, and the proceedings commenced on August 29, 2008. The notification of Complaint appears to have been delivered successfully by email, courier and fax to the addresses and fax number provided in the contact details for the registration held by the Registrar. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was September 18, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 19, 2008.

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2008. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

 

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Turkish company operating in the steel, shipbuilding and energy sectors. It has registered the trade mark ICDAS in Turkey and operates a website at “www.icdas.com.tr”.

The Respondent has directed the Domain Name to a web page which promotes (inter alia) other Turkish companies operating in the steel, construction and energy sectors.

 

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered mark, ICDAS; that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith, exploiting the Complainant’s trademark and reputation to promote competitors of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

As mentioned above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

 

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove

(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights;

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

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Each of these requirements will be considered in turn below.

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default in submitting a response as it considers appropriate. This includes the acceptance of plausible allegations of the Complainant which have not been disputed.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark ICDAS. The Domain Name is effectively identical to this mark. The first requirement of the Policy is satisfied.

B Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The only use which the Respondent appears to have made of the Domain Name or any corresponding name has been for a web page promoting competitors of the Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The second requirement of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is being used intentionally to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website for commercial gain in the form of commissions from those advertising on that website in the expectation of thereby diverting Internet users seeking to trade with the Complainant to their own websites.

In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this constitutes evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no reason to believe that the Domain Name was registered with any other intent. In the absence of anything rebutting this evidence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the Policy is satisfied.

 

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 <icdas.com> be transferred to the Complainant.


Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist

Dated October 6, 2008

 

Источник информации: https://www.internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2008/d2008-1272.html

 

Добавить эту страницу в закладки:

 


 

Произвольная ссылка:

Разработка сайта
ArtStyle Group

Уважаемый посетитель!

Вы, кажется, используете блокировщик рекламы.

Пожалуйста, отключите его для корректной работы сайта.