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

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Sam He / Attn: wikipediacn.info

Case No. D2015-1425

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. of San Francisco ("WMF"), California, United States of America, represented internally.

The Respondent is Sam He / Attn: wikipediacn.info of San Francisco, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wikipediacn.info> (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 August 12, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 13, 2015, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 26, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 16, 2015.

The Center appointed Maxim H. Waldbaum as the sole panelist in this matter on September 28, 2015. 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, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to encourage the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual and educational content, which was founded in 2003 and now manages eleven free projects built and maintained by a large community of volunteers. The first and foremost project is Wikipedia, a free, online encyclopedia compiled, edited and maintained by over 70,000 active contributors. It is one of the most comprehensive and widely used reference ever compiled.

The Complainant owns over 150 trademark registrations worldwide for the WIKIPEDIA trademark and the foreign equivalents thereof. Specifically, trademark Registration No. 3,040,722 was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 10, 2006 for "Providing information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet" in class 41. The registration certificate indicates first use of the mark in January 2001. In addition, the Complainant registered multiple domain names that incorporate the WIKIPEDIA mark. Currently, there are 41 chapters, which are independent organizations that share the Complainant's mission and support its activities within a specified region, and over 33.5 million articles have been offered in 288 languages on the Complainant's website.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <wikipediacn.info> on July 18, 2015. The website at the Disputed Domain Name directs users to a Chinese mirror site of Wikipedia with adware and pornographic images.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it is a famous and global provider of information through collaboratively edited reference projects, that it has offered services in connection with the trade mark WIKIPEDIA since early 2001 and that it owns the trade mark registrations and domain names for WIKIPEDIA and several variations of it in many countries in the world. The Complainant submits that previous UDRP decisions held that the Complainant had established rights in the trademark WIKIPEDIA and the mark is well known worldwide.

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its WIKIPEDIA trade mark in that it fully incorporates the mark WIKIPEDIA with the only difference being the addition of two letters "cn" at the end of the Disputed Domain Name, which does not alter the appearance or pronunciation of the wordmark and such addition constitutes confusing similarity because it mirrors the country code for China. In addition, the Complainant contends that it is a classic instance of typo-squatting.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in that:

a) The Respondent is not a licensee of or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant and the Complainant has never authorized or otherwise condoned or consented to the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name;

b) The similarity of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark and the Respondent's choice to engage in the practice of typo-squatting indicates that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name;

c) The Respondent has never used nor made preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or any names corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial purposes; and

d) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct users to a Chinese mirror site of Wikipedia filled with adware and pornographic images.

The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because:

a) The Respondent is using the site for commercial gain through adware;

b) The Respondent has created a mirror site and therefore it must have known of the Complainant's mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name; such mirror site constitutes an unauthorized reproduction of the content webpages;

c) The Respondent is redirecting users to pornographic images; and

d) The Respondent's bad faith can be presumed when the Disputed Domain Name is an instance of typo-squatting.

The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove the following three elements, which include that:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.

In this regard, the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the wordmark WIKIPEDIA with the only difference being the addition of two letters "cn," a common abbreviation for China, at the end of the Disputed Domain Name. Such alteration is insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

Notably, the Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name merely misses a period in <wikipedia.cn> and therefore is a typical instance of typo-squatting. The Complainant may mean that the Disputed Domain Name is considered to be typosquatting of the domain name <wikipedia.cn>, based on the finding above, the Panel does not need to determine whether this constitutes typo-squatting.

Thus, the first element has been sufficiently established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of proof, UDRP panels recognize that strict compliance often requires the impossible task of proving a negative because such information is frequently within the sole possession of a respondent. See Altria Group, Inc. v. Steven Company, WIPO Case No. D2010-1762. Accordingly, the Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. "Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name". Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Kim A Waugh, Kim Consult, WIPO Case No. D2014-1819.

In this case the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

This finding is inter alia based on the following, non-disputed, circumstances:

a) The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise affiliated with the Respondent. Also, it has never authorized, condoned, consented to the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name;

b) The Disputed Domain Name shows a webpage with adware which leads to commercial gain. In result, there is no legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name, nor an intention to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

c) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct users to a Chinese mirror site of Wikipedia filled with pornographic images, which proves that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of the goods and therefore has made no legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name and the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been sufficiently made out by the Complainant and that the Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name have been proven.

The Panel finds that the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are fulfilled here.

Firstly, the Respondent diverts Internet users to its website filled with adware. It is presumable that the purpose of attaching those adware is to either transmit or sell information and/or goods for commercial gain. This constitutes an indication of bad faith.

Secondly, as a matter of fact that the Respondent has created a mirror site, this reflects the bad faith. It is because:

1) The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant's mark with very slight alteration as to the insertion of two letters "cn" at the end of the Disputed Domain Name, and also the Respondent therefore must have prior knowledge about the Complainant's mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name;

2) The Respondent's website associated with the Disputed Domain Name was graphically and textually identical to the official websites of the Complainant. Such unauthorized reproduction of content cannot be viewed in other way than an attempt by the Respondent to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. This consequently falls within the scope of application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Ernst & Young Global Limited v. Latin American Trade, WIPO Case No. D2009-0138 (finding that the unauthorized reproduction of the content of the original webpages of complainant is also a sign of the bad faith use of the disputed domain name by respondent), (quoting Compiere Inc. v. Access, Denied, WIPO Case No. D2007-0131) and Educational Testing Service v. Domains by Proxy Inc. / Zhao Zhihui / Chen keqing, WIPO Case No. D2008-0993).

Also, the likelihood of confusion caused by the Disputed Domain Name is also enhanced because the Respondent's website is in Chinese and "cn" in the Disputed Domain Name represents the common abbreviation for China. In this case, the Disputed Domain Name appeared to be the official Chinese site of the Complainant and presents the false source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement from the Complainant.

In addition, as the Complaint says, it offers articles in 288 languages including Chinese and has multiple chapters in the world including in China. This thus shows the Respondent's bad faith because it creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site and location.

Further, in the Panel's view that the redirection of the Disputed Domain Name to pornographic images suffices an act of bad faith.

Last, in the Panel's view, the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complainant further supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.

In light of the foregoing, the third element of the Policy has been successfully established.

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 <wikipediacn.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Maxim H. Waldbaum
Sole Panelist
Date: October 12, 2015

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/