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

Railteam B.V. v. Internet Media Group, Domain Admin

Case No. DCO2015-0024

1. The Parties

Complainant is Railteam B.V. of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, represented by AARPI Clairmont Avocats, France.

Respondent is Internet Media Group, Domain Admin of Gwangju, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <railteam.co> 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 July 24, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 27, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 7, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 27, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 28, 2015.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 2015. 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

Complainant is a Dutch company composed of seven European railway operators who promote high-speed rail travel in Europe through a joint network across the continent.

Complainant owns nine trademark registrations for its various RAILTEAM trademarks, including a French national trademark registration for the word mark and International Registration No. 887130 which designates 27 countries, including the Republic of Korea. Complainant also owns six domain names incorporating the RAILTEAM mark. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant’s trademark rights date back to August 5, 2005.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 16, 2014 and expires on April 15, 2016.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant states that the Railteam Alliance and the RAILTEAM trademark are well-known in the main European countries since its rail system enables passengers to travel throughout the continent, and its “6000km high-speed rail network is the most extensive in the world”. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RAILTEAM mark because it entirely reproduces the RAILTEAM mark with only the addition of “.co”, which is to be ignored to the extent is designates a country-code, and should be considered to enhance the likelihood of confusion to the extent is can be construed as a misspelling of “.com”.

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has not been licensed, contracted or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use the RAILTEAM mark or to register a domain name incorporating the RAILTEAM mark, nor has Complainant acquiesced to Respondent’s use of the RAILTEAM mark.

Regarding bad faith registration, Complainant alleges that the incorporation of the RAILTEAM mark in the disputed domain name could not have been accidental because Complainant had trademark rights dating back to August 5, 2005, a period of nearly nine years, at the time the disputed domain name was registered; “RAILTEAM” is an original, created word; Complainant has had registered domain names incorporating the RAILTEAM mark since 2004; and the RAILTEAM mark is designated in the Republic of Korea through its International Registration No. 887130. Complainant alleges bad faith use because the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with links in French and English, while Respondent is a Korean company, relating to railway transportation. Complainant alleges that Respondent obtains a financial gain when Internet users access the disputed domain name and activate any of the sponsored links.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the RAILTEAM trademark in view of its numerous trademark registrations. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RAILTEAM mark because it incorporates the entirety of the trademark. The use of the “.co” country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) does not ameliorate the entire reproduction of the RAILTEAM mark, and indeed may enhance confusing similarity.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The evidence of record supports Complainant’s unrebutted allegations that Respondent is not authorized to use the RAILTEAM mark and is not a licensee or affiliated with Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page featuring related links to goods and services competitive with Complainant’s. It is well-established that a domain name which resolves to a parked page with links to competitive products does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., GetAwayToday.Com Inc. v. Warren Gilbert, WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0021 (collecting cases). Respondent’s use of the RAILTEAM mark in the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Respondent, by virtue of its default, has failed to rebut that showing.

The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden and satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Regarding bad faith registration, the Panel finds that because Complainant’s RAILTEAM mark has been registered since 2005, it is unlikely that Respondent was unaware of the RAILTEAM mark and Complainant’s rights when it registered the dispute domain name.

Regarding bad faith use, because the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page featuring links to Complainant’s competitors to generate financial gain, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

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, <railteam.co>, be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: September 25, 2015

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/