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

Louis Poulsen Lighting A/S v. Spear Lighting, Amru Al-Kadhi

Case No. D2014-0623

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Louis Poulsen Lighting A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Wallberg IP Advice, Denmark.

The Respondent is Spear Lighting, Amru Al-Kadhi of Uxbridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 15, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the Respondent as the registrant and provided 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 30, 2014. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was May 20, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 22, 2014.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 2014. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant manufactures and distributes professional and private lighting products around the world under the Louis Poulsen name and trademark, for over seventy-years produced. The Complainant employs over 31,400 individuals in 74 countries, and sells its products in 179 countries around the world.

The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations, including European Trademark Registration No. 002628063 for the trademark LOUIS POULSEN.

The Complainant also owns the domain name <louispoulsen.com>.

The dispute domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> was registered on February 12, 2014.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark LOUIS POULSEN around the word, including European Registration No. 002628063.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> is identical to the LOUIS POULSEN trademark, except for the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") designation ".lighting". The gTLD designation ".lighting" adds to the likelihood of confusion because it relates directly to the products associated with the trademark.

Rights and Legitimate interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's LOUIS POULSEN trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by that name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is not being used in association with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> resolves to a web page which contains links to third party websites, functioning as pay-per-click advertisements.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's LOUIS POULSEN trademark. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant's business and is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant's reputation. The disputed domain name reverts to a website which generates pay-per-click revenue. The Respondent, after receiving the Complainant's cease and desist letter, refused to transfer the disputed domain name and sought compensation in the amount of EUR 1000, exceeding the Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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

The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the trademark LOUIS POULSEN by virtue of the European Trademark Registration No. 002628063.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> is confusingly similar to the Complainants' registered trademark LOUIS POULSEN. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark except for the addition of the gTLD "lighting". The addition of the gTLD designation ".lighting" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark, but rather increases the likelihood of confusion.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant's trademark is well known in many countries around the world. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark rights in the LOUIS POULSEN trademark, as it appears to be involved in the lighting industry, serving as a consultant over the past two years. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark. In the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent use of the confusingly similar domain name in association with a pay-per-click site is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy was designed to protect trademark owners from this type of abusive registration. The Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant's trademark when he registered and used the disputed domain name, as the Respondent appears to operate in the same industry as the Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 disputed domain name <louispoulsen.lighting> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: June 10, 2014