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

INTELLIMIND v. Domain Admin

Case No. D2016-2275

1. The Parties

The Complainant is INTELLIMIND of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Desbarres & Staeffen, France.

The Respondent is Domain Admin of Quebec, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <intellimind.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 8, 2016. On November 9, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 10, 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 November 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 12, 2016.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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 company incorporated in France which has carried on business under the name "Intellimind" since 1996. It is a leading provider of Business to Business credit management solutions, providing a suite of software products and services that enable companies to make credit decisions quickly and manage credit risk appropriately. The Complainant manages a portfolio of more than 4 million companies in 145 countries. It works with over 40 credit agencies and credit insurers managing more than 4,000 insurance policies for its customers worldwide.

The Complainant is the proprietor of several registered trademarks comprising "Intellimind" including France trademark number 98746881 INTELLIMIND filed on August 20, 1998 and EU trademark number 7075708 INTELLIMIND registered on March 24, 2009, both registered in respect of a range of goods and sevices related to computer software.

The Domain Name was registered on September 6, 2013. At the time of preparation of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved variously to: an error webpage; a webpage with a security warning concerning malware; and, more frequently, parking pages. The parking pages comprised several links to third party websites, typically the websites of a range of software companies or competitors of the Complainant concerned with analytics and data intelligence.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its INTELLIMIND trademarks, 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 Complainant has uncontested rights in the trademark INTELLIMIND, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of its widespread goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the INTELLIMIND mark over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the Domain Name comprises only the entirety of the Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. The Domain Name comprises a made-up word and there is no evidence that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for a bone fide offering of goods or services. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Since the Domain Name comprises only the entirety of the Complainant's mark, INTELLIMIND, a made-up word with no natural meaning, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the INTELLIMIND mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel further considers that there is a legitimate presumption that the Respondent is deriving commercial gain from using the Domain Name for a website comprising parking pages with pay-per-click links to third party websites. In the Panel's view, this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(b)(iv)) of the Policy. The Panel accordingly finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <intellimind.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: December 29, 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/