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


OSRAM GmbH v. Haman Corporation

Case No. D2016-0056

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OSRAM GmbH of München, Germany, represented by Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner, Germany.

The Respondent is Haman Corporation of Tehran, Iran1 (Islamic Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <roshangar-osram.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 January 12, 2016. On January 12, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 13, 2016, 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 January 14, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 4, 2016.

The Center appointed Ellen B Shankman as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2016. 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 date of the Domain Name registration was confirmed by the Registrar to be August 27, 2015, and the language of the Registrar Agreement is in English. The Complainant provided evidence of multiple trademark registrations for the mark OSRAM including, inter alia, International Trademark, No. 676932, (registered on April 16, 1997; that predates the date of the Domain Name registration).

The Panel has conducted an independent search to determine that the Domain Name resolves to an error page.

Because there is no response, the facts regarding the use and fame of the OSRAM mark are taken from the Complaint and are generally accepted as true in the circumstances of this case.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a German limited liability company founded in 1919 and one of the three largest lighting manufacturing companies in the world. The Complainant supplied evidence of wide registration and fame of the mark OSRAM. The Complaint also cites multiple UDRP cases in which the fame of the OSRAM mark has been established and the relevant domain name transferred to the Complainant.

The Complainant also provided screen shots of misuse of its mark on the website of the Domain Name captured earlier, which appears to be an online store offering lighting products. (Since the independent search conducted by the Panel determined the Domain Name resolves to an error page, the facts regarding prior use are taken from the Complaint and accepted as true.)

To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of trademark OSRAM. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Thus, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy, and the Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for OSRAM, and that, even though not a prerequisite under the first element of the Policy, these rights precede the date of the Respondent’s obtaining the Domain Name.

The Domain Name string contains the identical string for OSRAM mark in its entirety. See also Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating “[t]he incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark OSRAM, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often-impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270. If the respondent fails to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence, the complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that it is not related to or affiliated in any way with the Complainant’s business.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case, which was not refuted.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the evidence of the Complainant’s prior rights in the well-known mark, the timing of the registration of the Domain Name, together with evidence of the Respondent’s use of the OSRAM mark both in the Domain Name as well as previously used on the Respondent’s website, namely offering for sale lighting products by attracting users to the website through confusion with the Complainants mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third requirement that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, under 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 Domain Name, <roshangar-osram.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Ellen B Shankman
Sole Panelist
Date: February 11, 2016

1 While the WhoIs contact details indicates “Iraq” as the country, the Panel considers Iran as the proper country as the remainder of the mailing address is that of Iran.