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

Aveva Group Plc. v. Edward Kim

Case No. D2015-2349

1. The Parties

Complainant is Aveva Group Plc. of Cambridge, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the United Kingdom"), represented by Mills & Reeve LLP, the United Kingdom.

Respondent is Edward Kim of Hunan, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <avevaengage.com> is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 23, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on January 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 2, 2016.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 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

Complainant is a United Kingdom information technology company providing engineering design, information management solutions and CAD/CAM software for the plant, power and marine industries. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for the AVEVA Mark since at least 2002, and applied for three AVEVA ENGAGE community trademarks on October 9, 2015.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2015 and expires on October 20, 2016.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it filed the AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications in anticipation of launching a new product named "AVEVA Engage." Complainant alleges that these Trademark Applications were made publicly available on the OHIM website as of October 9, 2015, and that it launched its AVEVA Engage product publicly on October 21, 2015, at the AVEVA World Summit in Dubai, via Twitter, a press release, and on its website. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AVEVA Marks because it fully incorporates the AVEVA Mark as its dominant element, and that it is identical to Complainant's applied-for AVEVA ENGAGE Marks.

Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has never been an employee, partner, agent or representative of Complainant, nor has he been licensed, authorized or otherwise granted the right to use the AVEVA or AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, because the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to "www.haroo.co.kr", which is a holding page stating "Thank you for visiting our web site. If you have any inquiries please send us an email. Thank you." The website provides the email address […]@naver.com."

Regarding bad faith registration, Complainant states that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its new AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications in a corresponding domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the AVEVA and AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. Complainant also states that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct, whereby he has registered numerous other domain names just days after other entities filed trademark applications for terms reflected in the registered domain names.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AVEVA Marks in view of its trademark registrations. The Panel further finds that Complainant likely has rights in the AVEVA ENGAGE Marks for purposes of the Policy in view of its trademark applications. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AVEVA and AVEVA ENGAGE marks because it incorporates the entirety of the AVEVA Mark with the addition of "engage," which further ties the disputed domain name to Complainant in light of its AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications and new product.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Respondent has never been an employee, partner, agent or representative of Complainant, nor has he been licensed, authorized or otherwise granted the right to use the AVEVA or AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. The Panel further finds that Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to redirect to "www.haroo.co.kr", where he hosts a landing page and has posted the email address "[…]@naver.com" and the domain name <hosting.kr>, which hosts a Chinese website where Internet users can purchase domain names. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide use, such that Complainant has made out a prima facie case for lack of rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to respond.

The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden and satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Regarding bad faith, Complainant's AVEVA Marks have been registered for over 13 years, and Complainant's AVEVA ENGAGE Marks were applied for on October 9, 2015. Although Complainant's AVEVA ENGAGE Marks were not yet registered at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Panel finds it likely that Respondent was aware of and intended to exploit Complainant's imminent launch of its new product when he registered the disputed domain name on October 20, 2015, thereby evidencing bad faith. See General Growth Properties, Inc., Provo Mall LLC v. Steven Rasmussen/Provo Towne Centre Online, WIPO Case No. D2003-0845 (collecting cases in which bad faith was found where the disputed domain name was opportunistically registered prior to the registration of the trademark at issue based on advance knowledge of imminent business event, such as a product launch or merger). See also Sota v. Waldron, WIPO Case No. D2001-0351, finding that a respondent's registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament "strongly indicates an opportunistic registration".

Regarding bad faith use, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect to "www.haroo.co.kr", which advertises for <hosting.kr>, where Internet users can purchase domain names, is in bad faith because it causes a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Marks and attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain based on this confusion. Additionally, Respondent has clearly provided false contact information, as neither the telephone number nor the postal address in the WhoIs record is valid.. False contact information is further evidence of bad faith. See, e.g., BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Texas Internet, WIPO Case No. D2002-0559.

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 <avevaengage.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: March 1, 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/