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

InfoSpace, Inc. v. Aleksei Arhipov

Case No. D2011-1255

1. The Parties

The Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, United States of America, represented by Stokes Lawrence, P.S., United States of America.

The Respondent is Aleksei Arhipov, Tallinn, Estonia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allwebcrawler.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2011. On July 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 17, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 18, 2011.

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 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 a provider of search engine services and developer of Internet search tools and technologies. It is the legal owner of United States trademark registrations for WEBCRAWLER, number 2007916 registered on October 15, 1996 and assigned to it on January 18, 2002 and number 3497997 registered on September 9, 2008. The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

This section sets out the Complainant’s contentions with which the Panel may or may not agree.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark WEBCRAWLER in the Unites States and around the world. It first used the WEBCRAWLER mark at least as early as 1994. It also owns the domain names <webcrawler.com> and <mywebcrawler.com> which it has used in connection with its services since the late 1990s.

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s well-known WEBCRAWLER mark and is substantially identical to and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name. The addition of the “all” prefix does nothing to dispel a connection with the WEBCRAWLER trademark. On the contrary, the addition of the term “all” appears to suggest an enhanced or special service connected with the Complainant and only exacerbates the confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on March 31, 2011 requesting transfer of the disputed domain name to which no response was received.

Long before the registration date of the disputed domain name, the Complainant had gained world-wide recognition as a globally renowned provider of search engine services and developer of Internet search tools and technologies. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any registered or common law marks containing the term “webcrawler”. Nor has the Respondent made any legitimate use of, or entered into any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has never been known by or operated a business under the “webcrawler” name. It has no relationship with the Complainant and is not authorized to use the WEBCRAWLER mark or any variations of it.

The Respondent has selected the disputed domain name in order to generate business through “click through” advertising and diverting traffic to a commercial website by capitalizing on the public’s familiarity with the Complainant’s well-known WEBCRAWLER mark. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users to a parked website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which, because of its targeted commercial links, appears, in part, intended to attract a similar target audience to the Complainant’s prospective customers. It is irrelevant whether the Respondent itself posted the parking page or whether he or the Registrar receive the click-through revenue generated. As the registrant, he bears the ultimate responsibility for the content displayed on the website corresponding to the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant’s trademark WEBCRAWLER is a coined term which has no independent meaning. The disputed domain name consists of this trademark, the generic word “all” and the standard suffix “.com”. The addition of generic words, particularly to well-known trademarks, does generally not affect the confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “Webcrawler” or anything similar and does not appear to trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its WEBCRAWLER trademark. The Respondent has never asserted any rights or legitimate interests in that name. For these reasons, on the basis of the available record, notably the absence of a Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademark, WEBCRAWLER, has no independent meaning. The trademark was first registered in 1996, fifteen years before the disputed domain name was registered, and assigned to the Complainant in 2002. The expression “allwebcrawler” has no meaning other than as a possible suggestion of something connected to the Complainant’s trademarks. Currently, the disputed domain name is not being actively used except as a parking site with links to various dating websites some of which Internet users might find distasteful.

In this Panel’s view, it is impossible, in the circumstances, at least without a Response to the Complaint, to identify a reason why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to attract business or Internet users to his site who were looking for a site connected to the Complainant’s trademark or business.

The only reasonable explanation of what has happened is that the Respondent’s motive in registering and using the disputed domain name seems to be one or more of the following: to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers, attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from him for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These each constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <allwebcrawler.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 24, 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/