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

SeeByte Limited v. Noori net

Case No. D2011-0802

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SeeByte Limited, Edinburgh, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented internally.

The Respondent is Noori net, Gyeongju, the Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2011. On May 9, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2011, Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On May 12, 2011, the Center issued a Language of Proceeding notification, inviting comment from the parties. On May 13, 2011, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond to the Center’s Language of Proceeding notification. On May 18, 2011, the Center notified the parties of its preliminary decision to 1) accept the Complaint as filed in English; 2) accept a Response in either Korean or English; and 3) appoint a panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available and also advised the parties that in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of the proceeding.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 18, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 7, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 8, 2011.

The Center appointed Young Kim as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 2011. 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 the registered proprietor in the United Kingdom of the trademark SEEBYTE, which has the registered number 2530339. The use classes in which SEEBYTE is registered are as follows:

Class 09:

Computer software; data processing software for interpretation, classification and analysis of data gathered by autonomous or unmanned devices.

Class 42:

Design and development of computer software; installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; consultancy services in relation to software.

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> was registered on March 31, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is visually nearly identical, and therefore is confusingly similar visually to the trademark SEEBYTE. The Complainant further argues that phonetically, the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark SEEBYTE.

The Complainant asserts that the trademark SEEBYTE is being extensively used by the Complainant in many countries worldwide in the ordinary course of its business for all the types of goods and services identified above. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant is well known for creating some of the six (6) world’s most advanced software for the management of unmanned and remote underwater vehicles (generically referred to as either AUVs or ROVs, which are respectively autonomous and semi-autonomous); and that these vehicles are valuable tools in the military, security, offshore, subsea and renewable energy sectors.

The Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is using or is preparing to use <seabyte.com> for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Complainant has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant found any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name (as though it were a trading name). The Complainant has also searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is being offered for sale by the Respondent, for example via SEDO (“www.sedo.com”) and via “whois.domaintools.com” (see Annex 5 to the Complaint). The Complainant has made an offer to the Respondent to acquire the disputed domain name for no more than the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs (which the Complainant assumed would be less than USD 150). The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s response (see Annex 3 to the Complaint), demanding payment of USD 3,000, is obviously evidence that the Respondent sees the sale of the disputed domain name as a money-making opportunity. This is clearly showing bad faith, contrary to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i).

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Language of the Proceeding

The Complaint was filed in English. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, or otherwise specified in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Panel notes that the language of the proceeding for this case would be Korean, being the language of the relevant registration agreement in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary by the parties.

Under the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of the proceeding. The Complainant has submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Respondent has posted the disputed domain name for sale through “www.sedo.com” which is operated in English. Further, the Respondent has communicated with the Complainant in English before this proceeding. Moreover, the Respondent did not submit any response either to the Complaint or to the Center’s Language of Proceeding notification, raising no objection to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.

The Panel has considered the particular circumstances of this case carefully as well as the discretion given to her by paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. The Panel hereby determines that English shall be the language of the administrative proceeding in this case.

Discussion

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark to which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

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

Each of these three elements is discussed below.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <seabyte.com> is phonetically identical to the trademark SEEBYTE and is confusingly similar to the trademark since it is different only in one letter (the substitution of the letter “a” for the letter “e”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is using or is preparing to use <seabyte.com> for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Complainant asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant found any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name (as though it were a trading name). The Complainant also asserts that it has searched for but has not found any evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

On the other hand, the Respondent did not submit any response or argument to the Complaint. There was no explanation or assertion from the Respondent that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the trademark SEEBYTE. The “seabyte” is not a generic or ordinary word. The Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 31, 2011 and then immediately offered the disputed domain name for sale via SEDO (“www.sedo.com”) and via “whois.domaintools.com” (see Annex 5). According to Annex 3 to the Complaint, the Complainant made an offer to the Respondent to acquire the disputed domain name for a sum of less than USD 150 on April 15, 2011, and in response, the Respondent demanded the payment of USD 3,000.

The Panel believes that in view of the actual cost for registration of a domain name, the Respondent demanded the amount which is in excess of the direct costs in relation to the disputed domain name.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met.

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 <seabyte.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Young Kim
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2011

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/