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

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Case No. DSE2018-0009

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Skiltex ofDenmark.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is M. G. of Sweden.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name <skiltex.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on March 7, 2018. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on April 12, 2018.

The Center appointed Peter Hedberg as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on April 30, 2018. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Petitioner is a Danish limited liability company within the business of signs, displays and other products to be used in fairs and exhibitions. For its business, the Petitioner has registered the trademark SKILTEX in the European Union (EU) and uses the domain name <skiltex.dk> for a homepage related to its business.

The Domain Holder is the registrant for the domain name <skiltex.se> (the “Domain Name”), which was registered on January 19, 2011.

The Domain Holder has been served with the application for an alternative dispute resolution and invited to respond, but did not submit any response before the response due date. The Domain Holder submitted an email communication to the Center on May 17, 2018. The Arbitrator has not taken this email communication into consideration when deciding this case.

5. Claim

The Petitioner has claimed the transfer of the Domain Name to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder has not submitted any claims.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

The Domain Name was registered by a “straw man” related to a competitor named Shopsign.dk, active within the same field of business as the Petitioner. The Petitioner is of the opinion that the owner of Shopsign hired his former business colleague to register the Swedish version of the domain name <skiltex.dk> in order to disrupt the Petitioner’s business activities in Sweden. The owner of Shopsign is also active in Sweden with a Swedish domain name <shopsign.se>. Through an excerpt from the Danish business registry at “www.virk.dk” the official association between the two persons described is seen.

The Petitioner believes that the Domain Holder has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting its business activities in Sweden. The Domain Holder has put a website template as a placeholder on the Domain Name, with latin “dummy” text. This creates no value for a visitor and this is just a way to avoid legal issues in Denmark.

In 2014 the Petitioner found out who the Domain Holder is and a few months later they found out the connections to Shopsign as described above.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder has not submitted any contentions.

7. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with Section 7.2 of the .se Policy, a domain name may be deregistered or transferred to the petitioner if the domain name

1. is identical or similar to e.g., a distinguishing product feature, a distinguishing business feature, which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the petitioner can prove its rights,

2. the domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

3. the domain holder has no rights or justified interest to the domain name.

The three prerequisites are cumulative, meaning that all of them must be met in order for a deregistration or transfer to be possible.

A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the holder of the EU trademark No. 009790254 SKILTEX, which is identical to the Domain Name.

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Domain Holder has not responded to the Petitioner’s contentions and the Arbitrator has to decide in the matter based on what has been put forward in the case by the Petitioner, considering what is convincing facts and evidence.

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder is a “straw man”, a secret representative of a Danish competitor to the Petitioner. An excerpt from the Danish business register has been filed as evidence, showing a connection dated 2008 between the alleged owner of the competitor and a person with the same name as the Domain Holder within a company named “Dansk Alge Rens”. No further evidence has been submitted in order to establish bad faith.

The Domain Name was registered in 2011 and the Petitioner states that it has been aware of the Domain Name and its holder since, at least, 2014. To the Arbitrator’s knowledge, the Petitioner has not sent any letters to the Domain Holder or in any other way claimed its rights to the Domain Name or protested against the actions of the Domain Holder.

In absence of any actual evidence or convincing facts, the Arbitrator finds that the Petitioner has not shown that the Domain Holder has registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

Given that the second prerequisite is not met, there is no need to examine rights and justified interests to the Domain Name.

8. Decision

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the Domain Name shall not be transferred to the Petitioner.

9. Summary

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder is a “straw man”, a secret representative of a Danish competitor to the Petitioner. In absence of any actual evidence or convincing facts, the Arbitrator finds that the Petitioner has not shown that the Domain Holder has registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.

Peter Hedberg
Date: May 20, 2018

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/