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

Culture and Sport Glasgow t/a Glasgow Life v. Yemliha Toker

Case No. D2015-2191

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Culture and Sport Glasgow t/a Glasgow Life of Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Yemliha Toker of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <trongate103.com> is registered with DropCatch.com 646 LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2015. On December 4, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 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 Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 11, 2015.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 December 14, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 3, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2016. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on January 20, 2016.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2016. 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 a charity that delivers cultural, sporting and learning activities on behalf of the Glasgow City Council within the city of Glasgow, United Kingdom. As an important provider of arts venues within the city, the Complainant operates the Trongate 103 center for arts and creativity. The name “Trongate 103” refers to the address at which the center is situated – 103 Trongate. Trongate 103 began its transformation into an arts center in 2002 and opened to the public in 2009. It continues to host a wide range of exhibitions and events.

The disputed domain name was originally registered by the Complainant. At some point between June 2015 and September 2015, the Complainant inadvertently allowed the disputed domain name to lapse. On or around September 2, 2015, the disputed domain name was recaptured via a “drop catch” service and subsequently registered by the Respondent.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In summary, the Complainant contends the following:

The Complainant seeks to rely on its unregistered or common law rights in TRONGATE 103, which is identical to the disputed domain name. The Complainant has exhibited a number of articles from third-party sources which demonstrate that the name “Trongate 103” was and is used extensively. In addition, the Complainant has submitted the results for a Google search for the term “Trongate 103”, which all relate directly to the Complainant and its activities. The Complainant further observes that it has a significant amount of followers who subscribe to updates about Trongate 103 on various social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter. Based on the above, the Complainant asserts that, by its use since its foundation in 2002 and opening in 2009, the term has gained secondary meaning and is a distinctive identifier intrinsically associated with the Complainant.

The Complainant has found no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known as “Trongate 103” prior to or after the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and has not received any permission or consent from the Complainant to use its unregistered trademark.

The Respondent has copied the look, feel and general substance of the Respondent’s former website and has thereby intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent’s email communication of Janaury 20, 2016 was forwarded to the Panel for its consideration. The Panel has reviewed the Respondent’s informal communication, and is of the view that its contents do not substantially alter the findings of the present decision. In any event, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s communication was filed well after the due date for the submission of a response and has, in its discretion, decided not to admit it in the present proceeding.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element of the Policy raises two issues: (1) whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark and (2) whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.

As to the first question, according to the consensus view of UDRP panelists, to successfully assert common law or unregistered trademark rights, the complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such “secondary meaning” includes the length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition. The fact that the secondary meaning may only exist in a small geographical area does not limit the complainant’s rights in a common law trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), Paragraph 1.7).

The record confirms that the Complainant is recognized in print and social media as a well-known center of arts in the city of Glasgow. In addition, the Complainant has submitted the results for a Google search for the term “Trongate 103”, which all relate directly to the Complainant and its activities. Furthermore, the term “Trongate 103” is a non-generic term apparently overwhelmingly attributable to the Complainant. The trademark is thus undoubtedly associated with the Complainant (see also Museum of Science v. Asia Ventures Inc, WIPO Case No. D2003-0691).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant can assert common law trademark rights in TRONGATE 103.

As to the second question, the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.

Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Since the Complainant inadvertently allowed the disputed domain name to lapse and it was subsequently recaptured via a “drop catch” service, it is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s arts center Trongate 103 at the time of registering the disputed domain name.

As per the evidence submitted by the Complainant, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to its website by copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s former website, for the likely purpose of achieving commercial gain. The Panel considers such conduct generally to constitute bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied 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 <trongate103.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2016

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/