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

The California Milk Processor Board v. Edwin Caballero

Case No. D2011-0951

1. The Parties

Complainant is The California Milk Processor Board of San Clemente, California, United States of America, represented by Sipara, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Respondent is Edwin Caballero of Northridge, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are registered with Network Solutions, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 6, 2011, Network Solutions, LLC 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 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 on June142011 , . In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 4, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 5, 2011.

The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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

Complainant is the proprietor of numerous GOT MILK? registered service marks and trademarks, in the United States (Registration No. 3730703), the European Community (Registration No. 8527178), and elsewhere. Complainant also owns the Internet domain names <gotmilk.com> and <gotmilk.net>. Since 1993, the GOT MILK? mark has been used by Complainant to promote the consumption of cow’s milk. Complainant’s first GOT MILK? television advertisement in 1993 was named one of the ten best advertisements of all time in a “www.usatoday.com” poll. In 2005, “www.taglineguru.com” named GOT MILK? as the most culturally influential tagline since the advent of broadcast television. Recent campaigns have featured high profile celebrities such as David Beckham, Beyoncé Knowles, and Britney Spears, in the United States and internationally. According to “www.sitetrail.com”, the estimated number of page views of Complainant’s “www.gotmilk.com” website exceeds 1.8 million annually.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on February 20, 2011 without Complainant’s authorization. On April 12, 2011 Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent informing him of Complainant’s rights in the disputed domain names, and requesting the immediate deactivation and cancellation of the disputed domain names. On May 9, 2011, Respondent sent an email to Complainant’s counsel, offering to sell the disputed domain names for USD 35,000 and “a small commission of the Complainant’s sales”. Respondent’s justification for this price was so that Respondent could use the proceeds of the sale to “help people build homes for free in Peru.”.

Complainant states that Respondent at one point was using the disputed domain names to advertise Respondent’s haulage services. However, both disputed domain names currently resolve to generic Network Solutions, LLC landing pages.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s GOT MILK? marks, that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14 of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from such a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOT MILK? trademarks. Respondent has simply added the two descriptive terms, “1800” and “1855”, which signify toll-free numbers in the United States, to Complainant’s marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in either of the disputed domain names. There is no connection between the terms comprised in the disputed domain names with Respondent or with any of Respondent’s purported activities.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> and use of those domain names in association with Respondent’s haulage business, devoid of any relationship with or nexus to Complainant’s GOT MILK? brand, as well as Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for more than Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain names, constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain names to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i)). Further, when using the disputed domain names in connection with his haulage business, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s GOT MILK? marks (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).

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 names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2011

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/