WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

OOM Holding N.V. v. Diamond Point Enterprises Limited

Case No. DNL2011-0076

1. The Parties

Complainant is OOM Holding N.V. of Rijswijk, The Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., The Netherlands.

Respondent is Diamond Point Enterprises Limited of Antigua and Barbuda.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <oomsverzekeringen.nl> (the “Domain name”) is registered with SIDN through Sombrero.de GmbH.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2011. On December 8, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 9, 2011, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 13, 2011. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was January 2, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 3, 2012.

The Center appointed Remco M.R. van Leeuwen as the panelist in this matter on January 13, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.

4. Factual Background

Complainant

Complainant is an insurance company, founded in 2000 and trading under the trade name “Oom Verzekeringen” since 1998. Complainant is also the owner of, among others, the following trademark (hereinafter: the “Trademark”):

Benelux trademark OOM VERZEKERINGEN, registered on May 29, 2001, under number 700697 in classes 35, 36 and 38.

Respondent

The first date of the registration of the Domain Name is July 18, 2005. Respondent became registrant of the Domain Name on January 9, 2009, through a change of registrant.

The Domain Name resolves to a website on which sponsored links are published, including to competitors of Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

A trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law

Complainant claims that it is entitled to the Trademark and the trade name “Oom Verzekeringen”. According to Complainant, the Domain Name is very similar to the Trademark since it reproduces the entire
Trademark / trade name only adding the letter “s” in the middle. Therefore, according to Complainant, this is a clear case of typosquatting.

No rights or legitimate interests

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights in the Domain Name, since Respondent has no trademark or trade name rights for the terms “Ooms Verzekeringen” nor is it known under this name. Moreover, Complainant claims that because the Domain Name is merely linked to a page containing sponsored links, it is not used in good faith or for a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Registration or use in bad faith

According to Complainant, it is clear that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, since the aim of the registration was to take advantage of the confusion between de Domain Name and the Trademark and trade name “Oom Verzekeringen”, and because sponsored links are offered on the website linked to the Domain Name for commercial gain.

Complainant further contends that earlier panel decisions under the Regulations show that Respondent has repeatedly registered domain names in bad faith, which strengthens the view that Respondent is acting in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, since no Response has been filed by Respondent, the Panelist will have to decide on the basis of the Complaint. Based on this article, the Panelist will have to grant the Complaint unless it seems unlawful or without merit. Therefore, the Panelist will review the Complaint on this basis.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

With Complainant, the Panelist is of the opinion that this is a clear case of typosquatting, adding only one letter to the Trademark and trade name of Complainant. The top level domain “.nl” may in this case be disregarded for the test of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panelist deems the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Trademark and trade name.

The Panelist therefore rules that Complainant has met the first ground of the Regulations as set out in article 2.1(a) under I.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant states that Respondent has no rights in the Domain Name and that it has found no good faith use or bona fide offering of goods or services on the website linked to the Domain Name. Respondent did not file any Response and the Panelist has not found any rights or legitimate interests that Respondent may have in the Domain Name in the record, and will have to presume it has none.

The Panelist therefore rules that Complainant has met the second ground of the Regulations as set out in article 2.1(b).

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Complainant states that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith since it is used to attract Internet users through confusion with the Trademark to a website offering sponsored links for commercial gain. Complainant has provided a screenshot of the website to which the Domain Name resolves confirming such use. The Panelist deems that the Domain Name is being used for commercial gain, by attracting Internet users to Respondent’s website through the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Consequently, the Panelist finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panelist therefore rules that Complainant has met the third ground of the Regulations as set out in article 2.1(c).

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <oomsverzekeringen.nl> be transferred to the Complainant.

Remco M.R. van Leeuwen
Panelist
Dated: January 26, 2012