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

Eutelsat SA v. Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Kian Nabavi, Caro.Vision

Case No. DME2017-0009

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Eutelsat SA of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Domain Protection Services, Inc., of Denver, Colorado / Kian Nabavi, Caro.Vision of Tecom DMC, Dubai, dxb, United Arab Emirates.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <eutelsat.me> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 15, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 18, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 20, 2017 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 December 20, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint 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 December 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2018. No official Response was filed with the Center, only four short emails from the Respondent.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2018. 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 one of the leading operators in the commercial satellite business. The Complainant was created as an international organization in 1977, launched its first satellite in 1983 and became a private company in 2001. The Complainant has a fleet of 34 satellites serving broadcasters, video service providers, telecom operators, ISPs and government agencies operating across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Its satellites are used for video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity.

The Complainant owns a number of international trademarks based on EUTELSAT. The oldest trademark being International trademark registration no. 479499 registered since June 20, 1983. The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT, of which the domain name <eutelsat.com>, registered since October 29, 1996.

According to the WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on December 10, 2017, and set to expire on December 10, 2018. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive web page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations and submits that its trademark is well known in the market. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical to its international trademark EUTELSAT as the Domain Name contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark EUTELSAT of the Complainant.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no relationship between the Parties that justifies the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent and nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate non-commercial use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive error page, demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark is well known.

As described above, the Domain Name points to an inactive error page. This suggests that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. It constitutes bad faith use pursuant to the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a formal response, but sent four short emails on December 21, 22 and 27, 2017 as replies to the procedural communications from the Center. The emails are sent from the address a[...]@caro.network and signed by “Kian”. The emails contain, inter alia, uninformed questions such as:

“Who is this sender? What I should do?
Why this collaboration is not polite! !??
Do you believe I should sell it?”

The last emails also include an explanation from the Respondent:

“We have added this domain to start a promotional plan for EutelSat for persian languages audiences and positive reason”

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the ccTLD “.me”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical 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 made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register domain names 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.

As documented by the Complainant, the Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate non-commercial use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive error page.

Even if it the explanation should be genuine and not a pretext (the Respondent has “added this domain to start a promotional plan for EutelSat for persian languages audiences and positive reason”), the Respondent should have sought an authorization from the Complainant before the Respondent registered the Domain Name.

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 Respondent’s explanation indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is also likely taking into account that the Complainant is rather well known.

The Respondent’s explanation suggests that the Respondent wrongfully believes that he is entitled to launch a “promotional plan for EutelSat for persian languages audiences”. As the explanation is not backed by any evidence, it is hard to know if it is genuine or only a pretext. Either way, there is no evidence of actual or contemplated, good faith use, the explanation points to bad faith pursuant to the Policy as the Respondent’s explanation confirming the knowledge of and the lack of use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is registered and 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 Domain Name <eutelsat.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2018

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/