About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SeeByte Limited v. Noori net

Case No. D2011-0802

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SeeByte Limited, Edinburgh, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented internally.

The Respondent is Noori net, Gyeongju, the Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2011. On May 9, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2011, Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On May 12, 2011, the Center issued a Language of Proceeding notification, inviting comment from the parties. On May 13, 2011, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond to the Center’s Language of Proceeding notification. On May 18, 2011, the Center notified the parties of its preliminary decision to 1) accept the Complaint as filed in English; 2) accept a Response in either Korean or English; and 3) appoint a panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available and also advised the parties that in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 May 18, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 7, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 8, 2011.

The Center appointed Young Kim as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 2011. 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 Complainant is the registered proprietor in the United Kingdom of the trademark SEEBYTE, which has the registered number 2530339. The use classes in which SEEBYTE is registered are as follows:

Class 09:

Computer software; data processing software for interpretation, classification and analysis of data gathered by autonomous or unmanned devices.

Class 42:

Design and development of computer software; installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; consultancy services in relation to software.

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> was registered on March 31, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is visually nearly identical, and therefore is confusingly similar visually to the trademark SEEBYTE. The Complainant further argues that phonetically, the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark SEEBYTE.

The Complainant asserts that the trademark SEEBYTE is being extensively used by the Complainant in many countries worldwide in the ordinary course of its business for all the types of goods and services identified above. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant is well known for creating some of the six (6) world’s most advanced software for the management of unmanned and remote underwater vehicles (generically referred to as either AUVs or ROVs, which are respectively autonomous and semi-autonomous); and that these vehicles are valuable tools in the military, security, offshore, subsea and renewable energy sectors.

The Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is using or is preparing to use <seabyte.com> for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Complainant has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant found any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name (as though it were a trading name). The Complainant has also searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is being offered for sale by the Respondent, for example via SEDO (“www.sedo.com”) and via “whois.domaintools.com” (see Annex 5 to the Complaint). The Complainant has made an offer to the Respondent to acquire the disputed domain name for no more than the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs (which the Complainant assumed would be less than USD 150). The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s response (see Annex 3 to the Complaint), demanding payment of USD 3,000, is obviously evidence that the Respondent sees the sale of the disputed domain name as a money-making opportunity. This is clearly showing bad faith, contrary to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i).

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Language of the Proceeding

The Complaint was filed in English. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, or otherwise specified in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Panel notes that the language of the proceeding for this case would be Korean, being the language of the relevant registration agreement in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary by the parties.

Under the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of the proceeding. The Complainant has submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Respondent has posted the disputed domain name for sale through “www.sedo.com” which is operated in English. Further, the Respondent has communicated with the Complainant in English before this proceeding. Moreover, the Respondent did not submit any response either to the Complaint or to the Center’s Language of Proceeding notification, raising no objection to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.

The Panel has considered the particular circumstances of this case carefully as well as the discretion given to her by paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. The Panel hereby determines that English shall be the language of the administrative proceeding in this case.

Discussion

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark to which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Each of these three elements is discussed below.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is phonetically identical to the trademark SEEBYTE and is confusingly similar to the trademark since it is different only in one letter (the substitution of the letter “a” for the letter “e”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is using or is preparing to use <seabyte.com> for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant found any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name (as though it were a trading name). The Complainant also asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

On the other hand, the Respondent did not submit any response or argument to the Complaint. There was no explanation or assertion from the Respondent that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the trademark SEEBYTE. The “seabyte” is not a generic or ordinary word. The Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 31, 2011 and then immediately offered the disputed domain name for sale via SEDO (“www.sedo.com”) and via “whois.domaintools.com” (see Annex 5). According to Annex 3 to the Complaint, the Complainant made an offer to the Respondent to acquire the disputed domain name for a sum of less than USD 150 on April 15, 2011, and in response, the Respondent demanded the payment of USD 3,000.

The Panel believes that in view of the actual cost for registration of a domain name, the Respondent demanded the amount which is in excess of the direct costs in relation to the disputed domain name.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met.

7. Decision

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

Young Kim
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/