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

Alliance Sports Group, L.P. v. Linecom

Case No. D2016-0142

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alliance Sports Group, L.P. of Grand Prairie, Texas, United States of America ("US"), represented by Thorpe North & Western, US.

The Respondent is Linecom of Gyeongju, Gyeongsangbukdo, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <iprotec.com> is registered with KINX Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 22, 2016. On January 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 26, 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.

On January 27, 2016, the Center notified the parties in both English and Korean that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name was Korean. On January 28, 2016, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding, to which the Respondent has not replied.

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, in both English and Korean, and the proceeding commenced on February 3, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 23, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 24, 2016.

The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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 Complainant is a US company in the business of manufacturing and selling various sporting goods, including lighting products, which have been sold under the IPROTEC brand since 2010.

The Respondent, Linecom, appears to be a Korean entity with an office in the Republic of Korea.

According to the information on WhoIs, the disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2012.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the IPROTEC trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Namely, the Complainant asserts that it has a trademark registration for the IPROTEC mark in the US and has used the mark since 2010, well before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to a parking service with links to products of the Complainant's direct competitors. Further, the Complainant claims that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for an amount that is far beyond the related out-of-pocket costs.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean, and both parties have had an opportunity to argue their position on this point. The Center issued a notice stating that it would accept the Complaint filed in English, and that the Response would be accepted in either Korean or English. The Respondent subsequently chose not to submit a Response.

The content displayed at the website linked to the disputed domain name was in English. Besides, both parties were given the opportunity to submit arguments in the language of their preference, and the Respondent neither raised an objection as to language nor submitted any arguments whatsoever in this proceeding.

Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds a trademark registration in the US for IPROTEC (Registration No. 4,846,392), which is identical to the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety.

For the reason mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie basis has been established, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the records that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.

For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that there are sufficient reasons to find bad faith registration and use in this case.

First, "iprotec" appears to be a coined term, and the Respondent's registration of a domain name consisting of the exact same term should be viewed as more than mere coincidence.

Further, the disputed domain name was used to display sponsored links to flashlights, which are the very goods associated with the IPROTEC mark.

Lastly, the Respondent has been named as the respondent in a number of UDRP proceedings in the past, including but not limited to Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Linecom, WIPO Case No. D2013-0712 (<colgatemaxwhite.com>), Iconcard S.p.A. v. Linecom, WIPO Case No. D2005-1115 (<iconcard.com>), and Microsoft Corporation v. Linecom, WIPO Case No. D2012-0538 (<microsoftbank.com>). In all prior cases, the panels found the Respondent to have registered and used the domain names in bad faith, and ordered that they be transferred to the complainants.

Based on the present record, there is insufficient evidence to consider the Complainant's assertions regarding the Respondent's offer to sell the disputed domain name for an unjustifiably high price, but the Panel finds such a determination unnecessary for a finding of bad faith in this case.

For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third and final element has been sufficiently established.

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, <iprotec.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Ik-Hyun Seo
Sole Panelist
Date: April 11, 2016

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/