À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

State of Florida, Department of Management Services, State of Florida, Department of the Lottery (The Florida Lottery) v. Rampe Purda / Privacy-Protect.org

Case No. D2010-0973

1. The Parties

The Complainant is State of Florida, Department of Management Services, State of Florida, Department of the Lottery (The Florida Lottery) of Florida, United States of America represented by Office of the Attorney General of United States of America.

The Respondent is Rampe Purda / Privacy-Protect.org of Finland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <myfloridalottery.com> is registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiDomains.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING ( SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiDomains.com. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2010, Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING ( SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiDomains.com. 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 July 8, 2010 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 8, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 3, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2010.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 2010. 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.

In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel finds that the appropriate language of proceedings in this matter is English, noting both the Center’s communications to the Respondent to this effect in Finnish and English, as well as the Respondent’s prior involvement in similar UDRP cases as the one present here.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has provided the Panel with details of a number of US Federal trademark registrations of the trademarks MYFLORIDA and MYFLORIDA.COM in connection with the offering of a wide range of services provided by the State of Florida. It is also the owner of the domain name <myflorida.com>, which, since 2000, has been the State of Florida’s official portal, serving as the gateway to the State of Florida’s electronic resources. Since that time, it has become the primary access point for visitors, businesses and citizens to 370 agencies of the State of Florida, including the Florida Department of the Lottery, with over 1,000,000 visits per month. Additionally, the State of Florida has incorporated MYFLORIDA.COM into circa 26,000,000 Florida vehicle licence plates to associate the domain name as the link to the State’s official portal.

The Florida Lottery was established in 1987 by the State of Florida, and continues to be owned and operated by the State of Florida. It is the official, and only, authorized State lottery. Since the Florida Lottery was established, it has sold and advertised its games and services under the trade name and service mark “Florida Lottery”. Last year, the Florida Lottery spent circa USD 30 million on advertising, targeted at Florida citizens as well as the circa 50,000,000 annual visitors to Florida from all over the United States, and beyond. In each of the past four years, the Florida Lottery has generated over USD 3.9 billion. The Complainant has provided the Panel with details of its US Federal trademark registration No. 1542860, filed December and registered on June 6, 1989, for the trademark “Florida Lottery” (and device), in respect of “lottery services”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <myfloridalottery.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademarks MYFLORIDA, MYFLORIDA.COM, and FLORIDA LOTTERY.

The Complainant further alleges, on information and belief, that the Respondent is not and has never been known by the disputed domain name nor any variant thereof, nor has the Respondent any connection to the State of Florida or any of its agencies or subdivisions, and that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant generally alleges that the Respondent‘s registration appears to be a mere ploy to trade on Complainant’s marks.

In connection with bad faith, the Complainant alleges that, at the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks can be inferred because of their well known nature as websites operated on behalf of the State of Florida. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s contact details do not appear to be effective, and has drawn the Panel’s attention to the decisions in Jafra Cosmetics, S. A. de C. V. and Jafra Cosmetics International, S. A. de C. V. v. ActiveVector, WIPO Case No. D2005-0250, and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, in support of the proposition that the provision of false and misleading contact information is an indication of bad fath.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that a complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of Respondent be transferred to the complainant or be cancelled:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is of the opinion that, in the context of the operation of the Florida Lottery, the mere “telescoping” of the Complainant’s two widely known marks MYFLORIDA and FLORIDALOTTERY into MYFLORIDALOTTERY, with the mere addition of the designation .com is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks/service marks in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel, accordingly, decides that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity presented in these proceedings to advance any justification of a claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws the appropriate conclusion. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent’s name in the present proceedings is well known to the Panel. In U.S. Natural Resources, Inc. v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, WIPO Case No. D2010-0720, the disputed domain name comprised the complainant’s established mark plus inconsequential admissions, and was used on a pay per click website which could have had the effect of luring potential customers of the complainant to its competitors. In Hertz System, Inc. v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, WIPO Case No. D2010-0636, the same methodology was employed, as was also the case in LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda, WIPO Case No. D2010-0840, and in L’Oréal v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, WIPO Case No. D2010-0870.

In the light of such a pattern of abusive behavior associated with the name Rampe Purda, the Panel has no hesitation in accepting the Complainant’s submissions in connection with registration and use in bad faith in the present case, and, accordingly, decides that the Complainant has also satisfied the test set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <myfloridalottery.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 26, 2010

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/