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

Seagate International ApS v. Host Creatif

Case No. D2011-2131

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Seagate International ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Weis & Wise Aps, Denmark.

The Respondent is Host Creatif, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <baadbasen.com> is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2011. On December 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 2011, eNom 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 December 9, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 29, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2012.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2012. 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 Seagate International ApS, a Danish company with its principal place of business at Copenhagen, Denmark. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registration for BÅDBASEN.COM, covering classes 35, 38 and 41 of the Nice Classification System. Under this trademark the Complainant renders online services related to the sale of maritime platforms, such as sailing boats, motorboats and other maritime activities.

Trademark BÅDBASEN.COM is formed by the term “Bådbasen”, which is original and has no signification in Danish or other language. It is in fact an agglutination of two Danish words, resulting an original metaphoric term.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name bears its trademark BÅDBASEN.COM, in a clear attempt to create confusion and mislead the consumers, particularly in the Danish market – that is, the same core market as the Complainant’s.

Before starting this proceeding, the Complainant was in contact with the previous owners of the disputed domain name. Apparently the second owner had a direct contact with the Respondent, but no major step was taken to reach that party, despite the efforts of the Complainant.

The Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is disrupting its business, as it is halting the launch of various other services that will rely on the access to the domain names associated to the registered trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In this Panel’s view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the Danish registration for trademark BÅDBASEN.COM. In comparing the Complainant’s trademark to the disputed domain name, the only difference is the substitution of the Danish letter “å” by two consecutive “a” letters. Under the rules of the Danish language this substitution is accepted – particularly when the letter in question, i.e. “å”, cannot be reproduced.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark BÅDBASEN.COM is undoubtedly linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has no express meaning in any language.

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Although contacted, even if indirectly, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions.

Besides, the Complainant provided evidence of the renown of its mark. Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent could not be unaware of the mark and its direct relation to the Complainant.

Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name <baadbasen.com> with the purpose of taking advantage of the renown of the Complainant’s mark.

Although not currently operating, the disputed domain name leads to a “teaser” web page, stating that an innovative boat platform will be available at that site in a certain amount of days. By so doing the Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to attract consumers in the same field of the Complainant’s business.

The Panel understands that all evidence as above shows that the Respondent obtained the registration and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel, hence, finds present the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

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 <baadbasen.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 3, 2012

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/