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

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Shawanda Kirlin

Case No. D2015-1628

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.

The Respondent is Shawanda Kirlin of Bali, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <electronicfrontierfoundation.org> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 15, 2015, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 22, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2015.

The Center appointed Anne-Virginie La Spada-Gaide as the sole panelist in this matter on October 27, 2015. 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 non-profit organization that defends user privacy, free expression and innovation. It advises policymakers and educates the press and the public through analysis, education guides, workshops and the like.

The U.S. trademark ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION No. 1,808,177 is registered in the name of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. in class 42, for “advocacy services; namely promoting public access to computer-based communications resources and the privacy of personal information contained within computer-based communications”. The mark was registered on November 30, 1993.

The Complainant has been using the mark since as early as 1992.

The Complainant’s official website is “www.eff.org”.

Since 2010, the Complainant has offered computer software and web browser plug-ins to the public, and offers in particular privacy software that blocks advertisements and tracking cookies that do not respect the “Do Not Track” setting in a user’s web browser.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 4, 2015.

On August 13, 2015, the Complainant was informed that the disputed domain name was being used to confuse consumers by redirecting them to the Complainant’s official website only after surreptitiously installing malicious software on the computers of unsuspecting visitors. According to an affidavit of a Staff Technologist of the Complainant, the malicious code exploited a known vulnerability in the computer programming language Java, by disabling Java security settings which allows it to execute arbitrary Java code without having to ask for the user’s permission.

The incident was reported in the media, for instance in an article published on August 28, 2015 on the website of Ars Technica under the title “Fake EFF site serving espionage malware was likely active for 3+ weeks”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as none of the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.

The Complainant contends also that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it was used in connection with a website delivering malicious computer software, and redirecting infected visitors to the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant contends that these facts strongly suggest that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of supporting a phishing campaign, i.e. an attempt to discover sensitive information such as usernames, passwords or personal details, by confusing consumers into believing that the attacker, to whom information is actually being provided, is in fact a different, trustworthy entity to whom consumers desire to provide information.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion And Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:

(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant contends that it has rights to the U.S. trademark ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION No. 1,808,177. The provided copy of the registration certificate for the mark mentions that the owner of the registration is Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Massachusetts, with an address in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In view of the discrepancy between the legal form of the entity recorded as the trademark owner (a Massachusetts Corporation) and that of the Complainant (a nonprofit California organization), and the different addresses, the Panel considered it appropriate to conduct a Trademark Electronic Search System search in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s database. The Panel could observe that the address of the trademark owner currently corresponds to the address indicated in the Complaint as the Complainant’s address.

The Complainant did not offer an explanation on the relationship between the Corporation organized under the laws of Massachusetts and the California entity, or how the Complainant may have come to the rights of such Corporation. However, given that the name of the Complainant is the same as the name of the trademark owner of record, that they have the same address, and that the Respondent did not contest the trademark rights of the Complainant, the Panel is prepared to accept that the Complainant has rights to the trademark ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant has thus satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Complainant granted the Respondent an authorization to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no indication that the disputed domain name corresponds to the Respondent’s name.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website surreptitiously installing malicious software on the computers of unsuspecting visitors. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use.

Furthermore, the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint. The Panel may draw from the lack of a Response the inferences that it considers appropriate, according to the Rules, paragraph 14(b). It is the Panel’s inference that the Respondent’s silence corroborates the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The mark ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION long predates the disputed domain name. The Complainant offers computer software and web browser plug-ins to aid in Internet browser security. The disputed domain name was used in connection with a website which redirected visitors to the Complainant’s official website.

In these circumstances, it is highly likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

According to the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, including press articles, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website surreptitiously installing malicious software on the computers of unsuspecting visitors, and redirecting infected visitors to the Complainant’s official website. This constitutes use in bad faith, as several panels have found in prior cases (see Twitter, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services/accueil des solutions inc, WIPO Case No. D2013-0062; Spoke Media Holdings, Inc. v. Andrey Volkov, WIPO Case No. D2010-1303: “As such even though it cannot be held that the Respondent’s conduct falls strictly within one of the specific examples of conduct that constitutes bad faith set out in the Policy, including the two set out above, these examples are non exhaustive. Due to the deceptive and malicious conduct of the Respondent the Panelist finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith”; DivX, LLC v. Domain Admin / CSRUS Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2011-0600).

The Panel considers, in view of such circumstances, that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <electronicfrontierfoundation.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Anne-Virginie La Spada-Gaide
Sole Panelist
Date: November 10, 2015

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/