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

Compuware Corporation v. Admin, Admin

Case No. D2017-2132

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Compuware Corporation of Detroit, Michigan, United States of America ("United States"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Admin, Admin of Daegu, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <compuware.net> (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Gabia, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 1, 2017. On November 1, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 2, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response indicating that the language of the registration agreement is Korean, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the Respondent's contact details.

On November 7, 2017, the Center sent an email to the Parties in English and Korean regarding the language of the proceeding. On November 7, 2017, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment.

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 in English and Korean of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 14, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 4, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 5, 2017.

The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 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 is a United States based software company that has marketed and sold its goods and services using the trademark COMPUWARE (the "Trademark") since 1974. The Complainant has registered the trademark COMPUWARE in the United States, the European Union and various other jurisdictions, see, e.g., United States Registration No. 1,341,600, COMPUWARE, registered on June 11, 1985. The Complainant has also registered the domain name <compuware.com> on September 23, 1993.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <compuware.net> on October 18, 2007. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying sponsored links and offers to sell the Disputed Domain Name.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered COMPUWARE Trademark, since the Top-Level Domain, such as ".net" or ".com", is not considered for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar, and since the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant's Trademark in its entirety, resulting in a domain name that is identical to the Complainant's Trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor has the Respondent been given permission to use the Complainant's trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Also, the Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, since the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark (which leads to misperceptions as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name), and since the Respondent is currently offering to sell the Disputed Domain Name for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name is <compuware.net>, which is identical to the Complainant's Trademark except the Top-Level Domain of the Disputed Domain Name. The term "compuware" carries no apparent meaning in the English or Korean language other than as a trademark, which is the Trademark owned by the Complainant. The addition of the Top-Level Domain ".net" to the end of the Complainant's COMPUWARE Trademark does not negate the identity or confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's COMPUWARE Trademark, given that Top-Level Domains are a required element of every domain name. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the Top-Level Domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

This warrants a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's COMPUWARE Trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence that the Respondent has any right, license, or an otherwise legitimate interest to use the Disputed Domain Name. Since the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302. Since the Respondent offers the Disputed Domain Name for sale in an amount that far exceeds the Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses in registering the Disputed Domain Name, this offer serves as further evidence of Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests. See Audi AG v. Claus Linder, WIPO Case No. D2016-1579 (finding that offer to sell a domain name in excess of the out-of-pocket expenses was evidence that the respondent had no true rights or legitimate interests).

In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, which evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii). Also, where "the WhoIs information suggests that Respondent is known as an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complaint's mark," a Panel may find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. In the instant case, the pertinent WhoIs information identifies the registrant as "admin", which does not resemble the Disputed Domain Name in any manner. Thus, where no evidence suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, then the Respondent may be regarded as having acquired no rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

Thus, there is no legal ground or factual evidence to hold that the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Domain Disputed Name is essentially identical to the Complainant's Trademark. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who sees the Disputed Domain Name is bound to mistake it for a domain name related to the Complainant, including an obvious association with the Trademark of the Complainant. By using COMPUWARE Trademark as the Disputed Domain Name with a Top-Level Domain added thereto, the Respondent has exploited the goodwill and the image of the Complainant's Trademark.

There is no evidence to find that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the evidence submitted to this Panel suggests that the Respondent has intentionally chosen a domain name based on a famous trademark in order to increase traffic to the Disputed Domain Name's website for the Respondent's own pecuniary gain, as evidenced by the presence of multiple pay-per-click links posted to the Respondent's website. Given the foregoing, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the Respondent is attempting to divert consumers to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by receiving pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that are listed at the Disputed Domain Name's website and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Also, the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, as the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark and the website at the Disputed Domain Name offers to sell the Disputed Domain Name without the Complainant's authorization or approval.

Therefore, the distinctive fame of the Complainant's COMPUWARE Trademark and its close association with the Complainant supports a finding that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith with actual knowledge of the Complainant's prior rights in and to the COMPUWARE Trademark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfied 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 <compuware.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: December 21, 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/