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

MILIPOL v. Domain Admin, WHOIS IDCPrivacy Service c/o IDC (BVI) Limited / saad aldabbagh

Case No. D2019-1913

1. The Parties

The Complainant is MILIPOL, France, represented by Cabinet Beau de Loménie, France.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, WHOIS IDCPrivacy Service c/o IDC (BVI) Limited, United Kingdom / saad aldabbagh, Qatar.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <milipolqa.com> is registered with NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 7, 2019. On August 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 8, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 9, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 9, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2019. The Respondent did not file a formal Response. However, the Center received several email communications from the Respondent between August 9, 2019, and August 25, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2019. 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 organizes trade shows and exhibitions related to police equipment, civil and military security and related services in France and internationally. The Complainant has used the trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL in connection with its services since 1995. In particular, the Complainant organizes the events MILIPOL Paris and MILIPOL Qatar, which are international exhibitions for homeland security. Further, the Complainant organized the MILIPOL Asia-Pacific, The Premier Counter Terrorism & Security Event in The Asia Pacific, on April 4-6, 2017 in Singapore. The Paris show in 2017 attracted 29,939 visitors (45% of which were from outside France) and hosted 1,005 exhibitors from 53 countries. The 12th MILIPOL Qatar show in 2018 attracted 8,487 trade visitors from 84 countries and hosted 222 exhibitors from 24 countries.

The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL throughout the world, including the following:

Qatar Registration No. 116688 for MILIPOL registered July 26, 2018
Qatar Registration No. 14256 for MP MILIPOL registered October 23, 2002
Qatar Registration No. 14255 for MP MILIPOL registered October 21, 2002
Qatar Registration No. 14254 for MILIPOL registered October 30, 2002
Madrid Registration No. 641805 for MP MILIPOL registered August 10, 1995
France Registration No. 95558016 for MP MILIPOL registered February 13, 1995
France Registration No. 4373310 for MILIPOL registered July 3, 2017
France Registration No. 95601442 for MP MILIPOL MAGAZINE registered December 15, 1996
Oman Registration No. 1379315 for MILIPOL registered September 12, 2017
United States of America Registration No. 5547953 for MILIPOL registered August 28, 2018

The Complainant also owns several domain name registrations, including the following:

<milipol.com>; <milipolqatar.com>; <milipol.us>; <milipolusa.com>; <milipol.org>; <milipol.net>; <milipol.eu>; <milipolkorea.com>; <milipolkorea.net>; <milipolkorea.org>; and <milipolintl.com>

The disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2019, and at the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to a “DNS error: host not found” page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contents that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name <milipolqa.com> replicates the Complainant’s trademark MILIPOL in its entirety, and the only addition of the geographical designation “qa” for Qatar and the gTLD designation “.com”. The addition of these elements do not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the MILIPOL trademark or trade name, and was not otherwise authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s registered trademark. The word MILIPOL has no meaning in the English language or otherwise, and is unique to the Complainant’s registered trademark and business.

The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, in association with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and accordingly does not have any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website does not mean that the Respondent is not acting in bad faith. The Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name which ultimately interferes with the Complainant’s business and takes an unfair advantage of the reputation of the trademark and trade name MILIPOL in Qatar.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <milipolqa.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as the disputed domain name replicates the Complainant’s MILIPOL trademark, except for the addition of the geographical abbreviation QA (for Qatar). The Panel notes that the Complainant has a significant business presence in Qatar and the addition of the country code to the disputed domain name does not serve to diminish the likelihood of confusion in any way.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the evidence filed in this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case with respect to lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Complainant clearly owns rights in the MILIPOL trademark as noted in paragraph 4 of this Decision. The evidence filed in this proceeding, which was not contested by the Respondent, supports the fact that the trademarks are well known, with a reputation that clearly includes Qatar, where the Complainant’s exhibitions have been staged for many years. The Panel finds that the Respondent (who apparently resides in Qatar) was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business, particularly because the Respondent chose to replicate the Complainant’s unique mark in its entirety and then combine it with the geographical descriptor “qa”, where the Complainant has a substantial reputation and activity.

The Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the name MILIPOL. The Respondent has registered a confusingly similar domain name and at the time the Complaint was filed has used the disputed domain name only in association with an inactive website. The Panel finds that this conduct does not support a finding of a bona fide offering of goods and/or services in association with the disputed domain name.

In this situation, the burden shifts to the Respondent to bring forward evidence of rights and legitimate interests. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As set out above, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the MILIPOL mark when he registered the disputed domain name <milipolqa.com>. As set out above, this conclusion is supported by the fact that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name after many years of use by the Complainant, and by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s unique trademark in its entirety, combined with the geographical designation “qa”. The Respondent has not brought forward any evidence to the contrary. The fact that the Respondent appropriated the entirety of a coined trademark, and then added a geographic description (QA) which is connected to the Complainant’s business, are circumstances that point strongly to bad faith.

The Panel is prepared to accept the claims made by the Complainant, and finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements 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 disputed domain name, <milipolqa.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2019

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/