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

Froriep Renggli v. Alexandra Maeder

Case No. D2013-0776

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Froriep Renggli of Zürich, Switzerland, represented internally.

The Respondent is Alexandra Maeder of Houston, Texas, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <frorieprenggli.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 3, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center regarding the Registrar information and mutual jurisdiction, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 3, 2013.

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 May 7, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 27, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2013.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 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

The Complainant, founded in Zurich in 1966, is one of the leading law firms in Switzerland, with around 90 lawyers and offices in the most important economic centres of Switzerland; Zurich, Geneva Lausanne and Zug. It also has offices in London and Madrid serving clients seeking Swiss law advice. It submits that the Complainant's name which consists of a combination of two senior partners' surnames, is widely known among legal professionals in Switzerland and abroad as well as within the field of prospective clients interested in Swiss legal services.

The Complainant's integrated structure reflects a strong international, cross-border focus. Its client base comprises domestic and international clients ranging from large international corporations to private clients. The Complainant has invested significant amounts of time and money into the development of its brands, reputation and goodwill. The Complainant has registered certain trade marks for the mark FRORIEP RENGGLI including in the European Community and in Switzerland in Classes 9, 16, 36, 41 and 42. By way of example, the Complainant refers to Swiss registration No. 539233 registered on August 31, 2005 and Madrid Protocol International Registration No. 80529 registered on March 20, 2006 for the mark FRORIEP RENGGLI. Copies of these registrations are set out at Annex 5 to the Complaint.

There appears to have been some limited correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent which is exhibited at Annex 7 to the Complaint. In response to an approach from the Complainant's agent dated January 29, 2013 regarding the purchase of the disputed domain name; the Respondent responds:

"Hey,

How are you doing? Sorry for the delay in communication, I have been in Malta for a business transaction. Yeah, I am willing to sell as its part of what we do, set up domains and build website to draw attention from recognized company….since you are buying to resell. $10,000 dollars won't be a bad deal to start. Let me know if you are ready to proceed so we can deal with the papers work.

Regards

Alex"

In the absence of evidence from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the truth of the facts as submitted by the Complainant in the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

1. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to a trade mark and a trade name in which the Complainant has rights.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence to support a contrary view.

3. The disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant relies upon the pre-existence of the Complainant's registered trade marks and also its trading goodwill in and "renown" of the trade mark FRORIEP RENGGLI. The Complainant also relies upon the correspondence between the Complainant's agent and the Respondent referred to above and set out in Annex 7 to the Complaint.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the mark FRORIEP RENGGLI. The disputed domain name <frorieprenggli.com> is identical to the trade mark in that it incorporates the words “froriep” and “renggli” without amendment. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant relies upon the fact that the disputed domain name was registered on December 6, 2012, well after the registration of the Complainant's Swiss and International trade marks and many years after the Complainant firm had been founded in 1966 trading under the mark FRORIEP RENGGLI.

From the evidence attached to Annex 6 to the Complaint, it can be seen that the disputed domain name was active and resolved to a website which referred to the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolved to the website and provided electronic contact details including an email address as well as telephone and fax numbers in Spain. It would therefore appear, in accordance with the Complainant's submissions; that the Respondent's purpose in doing this was to confuse Internet users and to divert them to the website for its own benefit or to create a nuisance for the Complainant. In either case, the registration was for no legitimate commercial purpose. The Panel accepts the submission and, in particular, in the absence of any evidence from the contrary adduced by the Respondent to show a legitimate purpose in registering the disputed domain name, the Panel finds for the Complainant in relation to this element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant submits that the Respondent was intentionally using the disputed domain name to attract and divert customers searching for the Complainant's services. This was done by effecting confusion between the Respondent's website (at Annex 6 to the Complaint) and the legal services genuinely offered by the Complainant on its own website set out at Annex 7 to the Complaint and referred to above. That, in itself, in the Panel's view is evidence of bad faith. Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent.

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 <frorieprenggli.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: June 3, 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/