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

Trader Joe’s Company v. Upay David, Dejava

Case No. D2015-2260

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Trader Joe’s Company, of Monrovia, California, United States of America, represented by O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Upay David, Dejava of Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <traderjoesjunkie.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 December 12, 2015. On December 14, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 14, 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 December 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 7, 2016.

The Center appointed Gunnar Karnell as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 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 disputed domain name <traderjoesjunkie.com> was created on August 26, 2015.

The Complainant, founded in 1958, continuously operates under the name TRADER JOE’S since 1967. As of October 30, 2015, it operates nearly 450 retail stores and the name is used with numerous food and beverage products. The Complainant holds 91 separate trademark registrations worldwide for the mark TRADER JOE’S dating back to 1986 and an additional 6 registrations for marks containing the words TRADER JOE’S.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In addition to the trademark registrations mentioned above, the trademark has become a distinctive identifier associated exclusively with the Complainant’s services so as also to have established exclusive common law rights for the Complainant to its trademark.

The disputed domain name only differs from the trademark TRADER JOE’S by the generic term “junkie”, being insufficient to dispel the confusing similarity that results from using the trademark in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has no rights to the trademark TRADER JOE’S or an interest in the disputed domain name beyond a commercial interest in misleadingly diverting consumers to generate revenue. The Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark in any form, nor is the Respondent known by the name “Trader Joes Junkie” or any variation thereof. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or intends to use the disputed domain name or any name corresponding thereto in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website titled “Auto Insurance Automotive” that displays only pay-per-click links and banner advertisements making the Respondent commercially profiting from the click-through fees.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark so as to attract Internet users for commercial gain, deliberately confusing consumers by falsely suggesting an association with the Complainant and Trader Joe’s related content. At the registration and further use of the disputed domain name the Respondent must be presumed clearly to have had constructive if not actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in its trademark TRADER JOE’S, its reputation and goodwill. Also, the Respondent has failed to reply to a cease and desist letter, sent to the Respondent by the Complainant on October 16, 2015, demanding compliance with the UDRP and other applicable laws.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that notwithstanding the differences between the Complainant’s trademarks TRADER JOE’S and the disputed domain name, the latter is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks TRADER JOE’S in which the Complainant has rights. All registrations referred to by the Complainant took effect well before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out the first limb of the policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and there has been no rebuttal by the Respondent. Nothing in the record gives reason to believe that the Respondent has or had any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out the second limb of the Policy in that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds no indication on the record that might impair the Complainant’s assertions regarding the facts leading up to its conclusions that the disputed domain name <traderjoesjunkie.com> has been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to a website hosting various sponsored links, among other things, falling under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has made out the third limb of the Policy and that the Respondent has registered and used 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 <traderjoesjunkie.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gunnar Karnell
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/