À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH v. Registrant [2828625] Laura Mouck /Moniker Privacy Services

Case No. D2010-0955

1. The Parties

Complainant is DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by Bird & Bird, Germany.

Respondent is Registrant [2828625] Laura Mouck of Belize City, Belize and Moniker Privacy Services of Pompano Beach, Florida, United States of America, represented by Stopp & Stopp, Germany.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <gelbesbranchenbuch.com>, <gelbesbranchenbuch.info>, <gelbesbranchenbuch.net> and <gelbesbranchenbuch.org> (“the Domain Names”) are registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2010. On June 11, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On the same day, Moniker Online Services, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 21, 2010 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 25, 2010, in which Complainant also requested to add another two domain names to the proceedings. The Center received a couple of emails in Response to the Complaint from a Dr. Stopp on June 27 and June 28, 2010.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced July 6, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response July 26, 2010. The Center received an email communication from Dr. Stopp objecting to Complainant’s request regarding adding another two domain names to the proceedings on July 8, 2010.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott, Gerd F. Kunze and David E. Sorkin as panelists in this matter on August 23, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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.

On August 16, 2010, Complainant requested that the proceedings be terminated. Dr. Stopp, who purports to act for Respondent, filed a submission, dated August 17, 2010 responding to the request for termination. Respondent, through Dr. Stopp, accepts that in principle termination of a proceeding by a complainant is possible but Respondent requires certain conditions to be placed on termination (if any). Respondent also asserts that a decision of the Panel is needed in order to effect any such termination.

There is some dispute between the parties as to whether Respondent is properly represented in the proceeding and that the legal counsel purporting to represent Respondent is authorised to do so. Accordingly, there is a dispute as to whether Dr. Stopp has proper standing. The Panel has agreed to determine this matter on the supposition that Dr. Stopp is authorised to act and that Respondent has proper standing, although ultimately it does not materially impact on the Panel’s assessment of the record, and its conclusion in this particular case. That is, because we are entitled to consider, and give appropriate weight to, the August 17, 2010 filing whether or not it is from Respondent.

The Panel accepts Complainant’s argument that it should be entitled to request withdrawal of the Complaint or termination of the proceeding at any time before a decision is made. Typically, as a matter of terminology, a Complaint that is discontinued prior to formal commencement of proceeding under Rule 4(c) would be described as a “withdrawn” complaint, whereas proceedings commenced and then discontinued would be “terminated”. And, as a practical matter, especially where such request is forthcoming only after formal commencement of the proceeding, it may fall to the duly appointed panel to determine whether such request should be granted. Equally, the Panel considers that if it decides to do so, this should be subject to the interests of Respondent being taken into account.

Rule 17 of the UDRP Rules reads:

17. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination

(a) If, before the Panel's decision, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding.

(b) If, before the Panel's decision is made, it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the administrative proceeding for any reason, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding, unless a Party raises justifiable grounds for objection within a period of time to be determined by the Panel.

It is clear to the Panel in this case that subparagraph (a) above does not apply. We do however apply subparagraph (b) and conclude that in light of the above circumstances it is “unnecessary” to continue the proceeding and we make an order permitting the Complaint to be withdrawn and terminating the proceeding.

We do so however having taken into account the points raised by Respondent in its August 17, 2010 submission.

We hereby grant Respondent’s first request, that we publish our decision to allow withdrawal of the Complaint and order termination of the proceeding. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to rule definitively that the Complaint (which has not been the subject of a substantive determination by the Panel) cannot be re-filed (effectively, to dismiss with prejudice). Further, we do not consider that we have the jurisdiction to require Complainant to reimburse Respondent for the Center or attorney fees it has incurred, as contended for by Respondent. We do however record that Dr. Stopp's client (whether that be the correct respondent or not) has paid the fee for a three-member panel in this proceeding. We simply record this so that any future panel considering a dispute between the same parties may wish to take these facts into consideration.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the proceedings be terminated forthwith.

Clive L. Elliott
Presiding Panelist

Gerd F. Kunze
Panelist

David E. Sorkin
Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2010

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