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

Dansk Supermarked A/S v. Naginder Dubb

Case No. D2013-1531

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dansk Supermarked A/S of Højbjerg, Denmark, represented by Bech-Bruun Law Firm, Denmark.

The Respondent is Naginder Dubb of Walsall, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bilkaint.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2013. On August 30, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 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.

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 September 6, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 26, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2013.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 is the largest retail company in Denmark operating more than 1,200 stores, some of which are named Bilka. The first Bilka store was opened in 1970. The trademark BILKA has been registered inter alia as a Community Trade Mark No. 006852743 with priority from April 22, 2008.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 9, 2013.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark entirely. The addition of the suffix “int” does not remove this similarity because it merely indicates that the disputed domain name is the international version of the Complainant’s website at “www.bilka.dk”.

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, because nothing suggests that the Respondent owns trademarks reflecting the disputed domain name or that the Respondent would be commonly known by that name. The Complainant has also not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain name and there is no business relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Also the Complainant’s logo is being used on the website of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. At the website of the disputed domain name, goods are being sold under the Complainant’s logo. Hence it is likely that the Respondent’s intention was to profit of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety with the addition of the suffix “int”. The Complainant has contended that the suffix refers to “international”, which the Panel is willing to accept. It can also be said that the word “int” is in itself commonly known as an abbreviation of the word international. Hence the disputed domain name merely combines the Complainant’s trademark with an abbreviation of a common English word.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The consensus view among UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that it has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name, and that the Complainant’s logo is used on the website of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen not to reply to these contentions.

Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent offers a variety of goods under the disputed domain name. Also the Complainant offers a variety of goods under its domain name <bilka.dk>.

As the Complainant has asserted, the Complainant’s logo BILKA in blue letters is featured on the Respondent’s website at the same top left side of the website where the Complainant’s logo is featured on its own website. It can also be seen that the website is organized in manner similar to the Complainant’s website, even though there are some differences as well. It can furthermore be seen that under the “terms and conditions” of the Respondent’s website, it identifies itself as “Bilka, a joint-stock company with a capital of €533,875 and headquarters situated Denmark, registered on the Register of Companies and Commerce under the number CVR 35 95 47 16”. The indicated company registration number is the same as is given on the Complainant’s website.

It is therefore evident from the website that the disputed domain name is used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <bilkaint.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 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/