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


SRC-Cultuurvakanties B.V. v. Diamond Point Enterprises Limited

Case No. DNL2013-0040

1. The Parties

Complainant is SRC-Cultuurvakanties B.V. of Groningen, the Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., the Netherlands.

Respondent is Diamond Point Enterprises Limited of Antigua and Barbuda.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <srcreizen.nl> (hereafter the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Sombrero.de Gmbh.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 30, 2013, SIDN 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 Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 30, 2013. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was September 19, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 20, 2013.

The Center appointed Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan as the panelist in this matter on October 11, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.

4. Factual Background

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant holds several Benelux trademark registrations for SRC, including a Benelux wordmark with registration number 0781537 and a registration date of December 2, 2005. Complainant is a travel agency active on the Dutch market since 1983. SRC is the dominant part of its trade name since 1989. The Benelux trademarks have been issued prior to Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name <srcreizen.nl> on January 9, 2009.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SRC trademark as it contains the SRC trademark in its entirety.

According to Complainant, in view of Complainant’s trademarks and trade name, Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Internet users are directed to a website which is a (parking) page displaying pay-per-click links. Respondent uses the Domain Name without permission from Complainant for commercial gain and with the purpose of benefiting from the reputation of the trademark of Complainant. Complainant submits that Respondent has registered or is using the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent no doubt had or should have had knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and is intentionally misleading Internet users for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a claim to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:

a. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights, or other name mentioned in article 2.1(a) under II of the Regulations; and

b. the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

c. the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has established that it is the owner of several Benelux trademark registrations for SRC. The Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the SRC trademark. The addition of the common, descriptive and non-distinctive element “reizen” (which is Dutch for “travel”) is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The top level domain “.nl” may be disregarded for purposes of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.

The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the trade name SRC.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SRC trademark and trade name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the Panel’s opinion, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has no trade name rights in SRC and does not own any trademark registrations for SRC, nor has Respondent been known under that name. Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant, since it appears that by using the Domain Name, Respondent diverts Internet users to a website which is a pay-per-click site featuring sponsored links to various websites including websites offering travel products and services of Complainant’s competitors.

Respondent has not filed a Response, and the Panel has not found any evidence in the record that could establish rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name on the part of Respondent.

Under these circumstances, and considering article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Benelux trademark SRC of Complainant was registered and used well before the current registration of the Domain Name by Respondent. Considering also that the SRC trademark has been registered as a domain name in the “.nl” name space, the Panel finds it highly likely that Respondent had Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name. Moreover, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a website displaying pay-per-click links, including links related to Complainant’s field of business, suggests that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Domain Name.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s SRC trademark and trade name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or services on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to article 3.2(d) of the Regulations.

While this is merely an additional consideration, the Panel also notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and/or used domain names in bad faith in several other cases under the Regulations, which clearly suggests a pattern of such conduct on the part of Respondent (see, e.g., Hotelplan Internationale Reisorganisaties B.V. en Orad B.V. v. Diamond Point Enterprises Limited, WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0010; Huurcommissie v. Diamond Point Enterprises Limited, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0039; and OOM Holding N.V. v. Diamond Point Enterprises Limited, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0076).

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <srcreizen.nl> be transferred to Complainant.

Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan
Date: October 17, 2013