About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sigma-Aldrich Corporation v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Robin Soested

Case No. D2014-1974

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sigma-Aldrich Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America, represented internally.

The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Robin Soested of Naestved, Denmark.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vetec.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 7, 2014. On November 10, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 11, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 12, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 21, 2014.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 November 21, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 12, 2014.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on December 22, 2014. 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

Vetec Quimica Fina Ltda ("Vetec Quimica"), a Brazilian subsidiary of the Complainant, sells laboratory products to research and industrial customers under the VETEC brand. These products include salt, base, acid, solvent and buffers and related basic chemistry and biochemistry reagents. The VETEC brand is part of the Complainant's ongoing strategy to continue building a presence in the emerging markets, including in Latin America.

Vetec Quimica is the registered proprietor of a number of VETEC trademarks including Japan trademark number 5592597 registered on June 21, 2013; Taiwan trademark number 01613997 registered on December 16, 2013 and a number of other registrations in South America and Singapore.

The Domain Name was registered on June 4, 1998. Shortly before the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage comprising only a link to a webpage at "www.domainnamesales.com" where an online form was presented offering a "free price quote for vetec.com". In response to an enquiry by the Complainant, on August 19, 2014 a domain broker stated that the current price for the Domain Name was USD 28,500.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its VETEC trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The trademark registrations on which the Complainant relies are in the name of Vetec Quimica and not in the name of the Complainant. The Complaint does not comprise any direct evidence that the Complainant is authorised to bring this Complaint on behalf of Vetec Quimica or that Vetec Quimica is a subsidiary of the Complainant. The Complaint does, however, include a link to a web page at the Complainant's website, where the VETEC catalogue is available to be downloaded, and the webpage states that the Complainant has acquired all outstanding shares of Vetec Quimica. Although this is not entirely satisfactory, in the absence of any rebuttal by the Respondent, the Panel is prepared to accept for the purposes of this Complaint that the Complainant is authorised by Vetec Quimica to bring these proceedings on its behalf. This approach is consistent with the consensus view expressed at paragraph 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0").

Vetec Quimica has a number of trademark registrations in respect of the word mark VETEC. The Domain Name is identical to the mark, ignoring the ".com" suffix, and the Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Shortly before the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a web page which linked to a website inviting enquiries as to the sale of the Domain Name. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Domain Name did not resolve to any web page. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has not, therefore, offered any explanation as to what rights or legitimate interests he might have in respect of the Domain Name. He has not, therefore, rebutted the Complainant's prima facie case.

In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The evidence of trademark registrations by Vetec Quimica annexed to the Complaint (and as described above under section 4) indicates that all the trademark applications in respect of the word mark VETEC were filed in May and July 2012. None was filed earlier than May 2012. The Complaint does not provide any evidence of the extent of any sales of products under the VETEC Mark or of the establishment of any goodwill or reputation in that name on the part of either the Complainant or Vetec Quimica whether before or after May 2012.

According to the WhoIs database and confirmed by the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on June 4, 1998. There is no evidence in the Complaint as to whether the Respondent registered the Domain Name on this date or acquired it subsequently, or of any historic use of the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Domain Name was registered some 14 years before the earliest date on which the Complainant could be said to have rights in a trademark identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name; even if the Domain Name was transferred to or otherwise acquired by the Respondent after May 2012 when the first trademark applications were made by Vetec Quimica, there is no evidence put forward by the Complainant that the Respondent would have been aware of Vetec Quimica, let alone the Complainant, when he acquired the Domain Name, or any evidence that he would have had the Complainant in mind when he acquired the Domain Name. Particularly in a case such as this, where according to the information provided by the Registrar the Respondent held the Domain Name since 1998, it would be incumbent on the Complainant to come forward with evidence of any later acquisition by the current registrant. See, e.g., paragraph 3.9 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.

According to the Registrar, the Respondent apparently has an address in Denmark. The Complainant, a US company itself operating in around 40 countries, does not rely on any trademark registrations in respect of VETEC in Denmark or even in Europe, nor does it argue how the Respondent would have reasonably known of or targeted the Complainant or its Brazilian subsidiary Vetec Quimica. The Complainant has not produced any evidence of any sales of VETEC products in Denmark or Europe and the catalogue of VETEC products referred to in the Complaint is in the Portuguese language. The burden falls on the Complainant to put forward at least some argument as to why the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant or its VETEC products.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith based on the offer to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for the sum of USD 28,500. That offer was made, however, so far as the Panel can determine, only in response to an enquiry by the Complainant. The Panel does not, therefore, in all the circumstances, accept that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a view to offering it for sale to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant. The Panel does not accept, either, that the mere use of a privacy service to register and/or hold the Domain Name is sufficient of itself to demonstrate registration and use in bad faith.

On balance, therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: January 2, 2015

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/