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

G&P Net S.p.A. v. Shawshank Trade

Case No. D2012-0153

1. The Parties

The Complainant is G&P Net S.p.A. of Altopascio, Lucca, Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti, Italy.

The Respondent is Shawshank Trade of Shanghai, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <peutereysitoufficiale.net> is registered with Name.com LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Name.com LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 2012, Name.com LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response [confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 1, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 21, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 22, 2012.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on February 28, 2012. 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 in the business of producing, marketing and selling high quality articles of clothing and accessories. It has used the trade mark PEUTEREY from 1997 to identify its products on the market and is the owner of numerous registered rights in the trade mark in respect of the appropriate goods, details of which have been supplied to the Panel, the earliest dating from 1995 and which cover a wide geographical area, including its home country, Italy, specifically, the European Union, China, Hong Kong and Macao. The Complainant’s products can be found in retail stores in 25 countries. Evidence has been provided by the Complainant which indicates that there are no third party registrations of trade marks internationally which are identical or similar to the trade mark PEUTEREY.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that its trade mark is highly distinctive, and that the only difference between its trade mark PEUTEREY and the disputed domain name is the addition of the descriptive components “sito ufficiale”, which is Italian for “official site”. This Italian expression is sufficiently close to the English equivalent to be readily understood by English-speakers in international trading. Consequently, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark in which it has rights.

The Complainant contends that it is not affiliated with the Respondent, has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark or to incorporate it into a domain name. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, does not trade under the mark PEUTEREY and does not make any legitimate commercial use thereof. Consequently, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has provided evidence to the Panel to the effect that the disputed domain name is currently unused, although accessing the website to which the disputed domain name resolves can result in a potential customer being directed to websites relating to competing products.

The Complainant has drawn the Panel’s attention to the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and other similar decisions, in which the circumstances attending non-use of a domain name have been held to constitute use in bad faith of a domain name, and argues that the circumstances of the present case are such as to justify a finding of registration and use in bad faith.

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 the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant or be cancelled:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that gTLD indicators (“.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may not be taken into account in the consideration of confusing similarity between a trade mark and a domain name. It is also well-established in previous decisions under the UDRP that the mere addition of descriptive elements to a well-known or distinctive mark is not sufficient to evade a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel agrees with prior UDRP decisions as referred to above, both in connection with gTLD indicators and in connection with added descriptive elements.

The Complainant has already had its trade mark rights to its mark PEUTEREY recognized in previous decisions under the UDRP. The Panel recognizes the Complainant’s mark PEUTEREY as distinctive.

In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name are confusingly similar, and, accordingly finds that the Complainant has satisfied the test of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Where a respondent has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the predominant view of panels in previous UDRP decisions, with which this Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this case, 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 can draw the appropriate conclusion under the Policy. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy as establishing a prima facie case, and, accordingly, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that, in the case of a well-known or distinctive mark, the finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, may lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Panel finds such circumstances in the present case, and, accordingly, finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

The Panel agrees with the reasoning in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra, feels that the circumstances of the present case are such as to justify a finding of use in bad faith, and so finds.

The Panel, accordingly, finds that the Complainant has satisfied the test of 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 <peutereysitoufficiale.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 13, 2012

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/