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

SAP SE v. Carlos Blanco Vazquez, Itnet Consulting Business SL

Case No. D2016-2623

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SAP SE of Walldorf, Germany, represented by K&G Law LLC, United States of America (“US”).

The Respondent is Carlos Blanco Vazquez, Itnet Consulting Business SL of Barcelona, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <opensap.com> 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 December 23, 2016. On December 27, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 28, 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 December 29, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2017.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2017. 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 began operations in 1972 in enterprise software applications, analytics, mobile solutions, and related services. The Complainant’s headquarter is in Germany. The Complainant employs over 76,000 people worldwide. It serves approximately 335,000 customers in 190 countries. The Complainant is listed on both the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for SAP in all major markets around the globe. A list of registrations is attached to the Complaint. The SAP brand is ranked 26th of the world’s top brands by Interbrand.

The Complainant uses the designation openSAP for its online learning platform.

The Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2004 and expires on April 25, 2017.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits that the SAP trademark is well-known. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s tradename and registered trademarks.

The Complainant argues further that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in or legitimate, bona fide business purpose for using <opensap.com>. The Respondent has no trademark rights or any other legitimate rights in the mark SAP, nor has it been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use this trademark. Moreover, the Domain Name resolves to a parking page that offers the Domain Name for sale for EUR 10,000.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous trademark before the Domain Name was registered. The Complainant has used the trademark and tradename long before the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent has offered to sell the Domain Name for EUR 10,000. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use as identified in the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SAP.

For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the word “open” and the Complainant’s trademark SAP. The Complainant uses the designation openSAP for its online learning platform. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark.

Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not generally known by the Domain Name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.

The Domain Name resolves to a web page that offers the Domain Name for sale for EUR 10,000.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is likely that the Respondent’s intention for registering the Domain Name has been financial gain, evidenced by the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a parking page that offers the Domain Name for sale for EUR 10,000.

This finding is supported by the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 disputed domain name <opensap.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: February 1, 2017

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/