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

International Business Machines Corporation v. James H Park, JIN-1

Case No. D2020-1427

1. The Parties

The Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is James H Park, JIN-1, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ibmstore.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 5, 2020, 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 June 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2020.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2020. 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 designs and manufactures different products that record, process, communicate, store and retrieve information, including computers and computer hardware, software and accessories. In 2019, the Complainant was ranked the 12th best global brand by Interbrand and the 38th largest company on the Fortune U.S. 500 list. The IBM trademark was valued by BrandZ as worth over USD 86 billion in 2019. In previous UDRP decisions, the fame of the IBM trademark has been recognized.

The Complainant owns and has owned trademark registrations for IBM in 170 countries all around the world for several decades, for example United States trademark registration no. 1,694,814, registered on June 16, 1992 and Republic of Korea trademark registration no. 40-0000508, registered on November 30, 1954.

The Domain Name was registered on April 16, 2017. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a parking page with links and the text “buy this domain. The owner of ibmstore.com will sell it for the price of 2500 USD!”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the trademark IBM is contained in the Domain Name and the addition of the word “store” does not obviate the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that there is no evidence of any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent has been using the IBM trademark in the Domain Name to promote its website for illegitimate commercial gains. Such unauthorized use of the IBM trademark is likely to trick consumers into erroneously believing that the Complainant is affiliated with the Respondent or endorsing its commercial activities, while in fact, no such relationship exists.

The Complainant believes the Respondent knew he/she incorporated a well-known trademark in the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent has used the Domain Name containing the IBM trademark for illegitimate commercial gains, namely to attract visitors to his/her website, and generate revenue through pay-per-click advertisement links. The Respondent’s email replies to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, are further evidence of bad faith.

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 IBM.

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of “store”. The addition does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.

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 asserts that there is no evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to deceive consumers into erroneously believing that the Complainant is affiliated with the Respondent or endorsing its commercial activities.

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

Based on the case file, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name seems to be an attempt to attract visitors to his/her website by using the IBM trademark, and in that way generate revenue through pay-per-click advertisement links. The Domain Name is offered for sale on the same webpage for USD 2,500. The Respondent’s email replies with a lack of explanation as to why the Respondent registered the Domain Name, further indicate bad faith.

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 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 Domain Name <ibmstore.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 21, 2020

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/