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

ED Enterprise AG v. Yunsung Yunsung

Case No. D2012-0812

1. The Parties

Complainant is ED Enterprise AG of Grünwald, Germany represented by RWZH rechtsanwälte, Germany.

Respondent is Yunsung Yunsung of Namyangju Kyunggi, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <blaupunkt.net> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 17, 2012. On April 18, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Bizcn.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 19, 2012, Bizcn.com, Inc. 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 April 23, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 13, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 16, 2012.

The Center appointed André R. Bertrand as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 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

Complainant is an investor that, among other things, licenses intellectual property rights. Among the many trademarks that Complainant owns and exploits is BLAUPUNKT. This mark has been used in Germany for car radios since 1920, and was registered as a trademark there in 1939. At the present time, Complainant has registered around 200 BLAUPUNKT trademarks worldwide, including in Republic of Korea, Respondent’s home country, since 1981.

Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name on July 31, 2005 according to the Registrar.

The disputed domain name currently links to a kind of parking page, where the disputed domain name is offered for sale at the top of the page. On the left, one finds a column with several links for radio, audio and stereo products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contents that: (i) the disputed domain name is, if not identical, at least confusingly similar to the trademarks and domain names in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove all of the following in order for its contentions to be supported in the proceeding:

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

(ii) 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

Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <blaupunkt.net> is confusingly similar to its trademark BLAUPUNKT.

The disputed domain name <blaupunkt.net> comprises two elements, i.e. the trademark BLAUPUNKT and the generic Top-Level Domain “.net”.

Similar to ED Enterprise AG v. Guava Softs Pvt Ltd, Anshul Goyal, WIPO Case No. D2012-0147, regarding the domain name <blaupunkt.biz>, where the the generic Top-Level Domain “.biz” was added to the trademark BLAUPUNKT, here the generic Top-Level Domain “.net” was added to the trademark BLAUPUNKT.

Thus this Panel agrees with the above UDRP decision that the disputed domain name <blaupunkt.net> is confusingly similar to the trademark BLAUPUNKT.

In light of the documents submitted by Complainant, the Panel considers not only that Complainant is the legitimate owner of the trademark BLAUPUNKT, but that this trademark has been used since 1920, registered since 1939, and is now registered in most countries in the world, where the “Blaupunkt” products are also sold or installed in cars. As such, this trademark, in this Panel’s view, can be considered as “notorious”, “well-known” or “famous”.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

Thus the Panel adopts the principles set forth in Société Air France v. Veraxio Internet Design Qualite-Air-France.Com, WIPO Case No. D2006-0846, and “finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden accordingly shifts to the Respondent to dispute the Complainant’s allegation. The Policy, paragraph 4(c), gives assistance to respondents as to how they may demonstrate their rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. The circumstances listed are non-exhaustive, and proof of any one of these would suffice for the purposes of the Respondent demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests”.

In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

Thus, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Due to the fact that the trademark BLAUPUNKT is “well-known”, if not “famous”, as pointed out by Complainant, it is difficult to imagine that Respondent could have ignored this trademark at the time it applied for registration of the confusingly similar domain name.

The Panel agrees with the fact that this implies a presumption of bad faith.

Furthermore, as already pointed out, the disputed domain name currently links to a kind of parking page, where the disputed domain name is also offered for sale at the top of the page. On the left, one finds a column with several links for radio, audio and stereo products which are similar or in competition with Complainant’s products.

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 <blaupunkt.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

André R. Bertrand
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 19, 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/