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

Tumblr, Inc. v. Richard Fortier

Case No. D2013-0424

1. The Parties

Complainant is Tumblr, Inc. of New York, United States of America, internally represented.

Respondent is Richard Fortier of Greenville, New Hampshire, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <yumblr.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2013. On March 1, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 1, 2013, the Registrar 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 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 7, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 27, 2013. The Center notified Respondent Default on March 28, 2013. A third party sent an email communication on March 28, 2013, to which Complainant replied on the same date. Respondent sent an email to the Center on March 29, 2013 and on April 17, 2013.

The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2013. 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

Complainant is a well-known social media site and owner of trademark rights in the name and mark TUMBLR. Complainant has used the TUMBLR mark since 2007. The mark is inherently distinctive and entitled to common law rights in the United States upon first use in commerce. The TUMBLR mark is also the subject, inter alia, of United States Trademark Registration, Reg. No. 3,714,214, which constitutes prima facie evidence of nationwide trademark rights from the date of filing on October 27, 2008. The filing date of this application is subsequent to the registration date of the Disputed Domain Name, and therefore is not a factor in this decision.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 20, 2008, after Complainant’s first use and effective date of nationwide rights. The Disputed Domain Name is used to redirect Internet users to an unrelated site with links to other commercial businesses.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is an example of typosquatting; that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name; and that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent asserted that Complainant was “illegally” attempting to claim rights in the Disputed Domain Name which he has “owned for five years”, but otherwise did not reply to the merits of Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Respondent asserts that he is confused by the UDRP process and is not aware of how to contest the Complaint. Nevertheless, Respondent successfully obtained the Disputed Domain Name registration online, linked the Disputed Domain Name to a commercial site, and apparently profited from this conduct. Respondent agreed to submit to the UDRP process as part of the registration contract when he registered the Disputed Domain Name. The UDRP process is over ten years old, and is well explained on the WIPO site and elsewhere on the Internet. The Panel finds that Respondent had ample time to obtain advice and assistance on the UDRP process and sufficient time to respond to the merits of the Complaint. This matter is therefore ready for decision based on the clear record presented by Complainant.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TUMBLR mark owned by Complainant, as the prior user of the distinctive mark. The Disputed Domain Name <yumblr.com> seems to be a classic example of typosquatting that relies on an easy keyboard mistake in substituting the letter “y” for the adjacent letter “t” on a qwerty keyboard.

The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not authorized to use the TUMBLR mark; is not making bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name for a non-infringing purpose; he is not known by the “yumblr” name; and is not using the Disputed Domain Name fairly for noncommercial comment or use. Instead, it appears the Disputed Domain Name is used to redirect Internet users to unrelated commercial site for the apparent financial benefit of Respondent.

Respondent has not rebutted these facts.

The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The record shows by a preponderance of evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by Respondent as a deliberate act of typosquatting and was deliberately used in bad faith to mislead Internet users to an unrelated site for commercial gain.

Respondent has provided no good faith justification for its registration and use of the Dispute Domain Name, and none if suggested or colorable based on the record presented.

The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint.

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 <yumblr.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Mark Partridge
Sole Panelist
Date: May 13, 2013

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/