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

Trodat GmbH v. Fuat Akkus, Yonkinya

Case No. D2016-0226

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Trodat GmbH of Wels, Austria, represented by Salomonowitz | Horak, Austria.

The Respondent is Fuat Akkus, Yonkinya of Hannover, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <trodat.world> (the "Domain Name") is registered with united-domains AG (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 5, 2016. On February 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 9, 2016, 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").

The Complaint was submitted in English. As confirmed by the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is German. The Center sent an email communication to the Parties, in both English and German, regarding the language of the proceeding on February 10, 2016. On February 12, 2016, the Complainant filed a submission requesting that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceeding by the specific due date. The Center proceeded in English and German.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent (in English and in German) of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 10, 2016.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 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 manufacturer of stamps and is the owner of several trademarks for TRODAT, including IR 484432 TRODAT in International Class 16 with the registration date March 30, 1984 and CTM 003082773 TRODAT (word and device) in International Classes 2, 7, 9, 16, 35, 40 and 42 with the registration date May 6, 2005.

The Domain Name was registered on January 14, 2015, and is passively held.

Based on the website "www.yonkinya.de", the Respondent is active in the printing business and offers business cards, menu cards, stickers, etc.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is an Austrian company that has been manufacturing stamps since the early 20th century and is now the world market leader for self-inking stamps, delivering to customers worldwide. The Complainant contends that it has been using the trademark TRODAT for stamps since 1947 and as a company name since 1968.

The Complainant contends that that the Domain Name is identical to the work mark TRODAT, that the Domain Name creates a likelihood of confusion on the Internet, that the Respondent has no license or other rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is passively holding the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions

6. Discussion and Findings

As a preliminary matter, the Panel finds, in its discretion to do so under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of this proceeding is English. The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant's request that English be the language of proceeding and the Complainant has submitted evidence appearing to show that, despite the Registrar's confirmation of German as the language of the Registration Agreement, at least part of the Registrar's Registration Agreement for ".world" domain names is in English.

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

(i) The 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 Domain Name; and

(iii) The 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 TRODAT, e.g. International Registration No. 484432 TRODAT and Community Trademark No. 003082773 TRODAT (and device).

The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark except for the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".world". The gTLD ".world" is to be disregarded when assessing the similarity of a mark with a domain name (j2 Cloud Services, Inc. and j2 Global Holdings Ltd. vs. DSGS DSGS / DSGS, WIPO Case No. D2015-1830). The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name <trodat.world> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark TRODAT.

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 Complainant contends, credibly, that the Respondent has no license or other rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark in the Domain Name.

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

Considering that TRODAT is a coined mark with no apparent dictionary meaning that has been used worldwide for decades for stamps, and further considering that the Complainant and the Respondent are active in the same industry, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and that it registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

The Panel also finds that the Respondent is using the Domain Dame in bad faith, since it is well-established that the passive holding of a domain name can, in cases such as this, where no plausible good faith use of the domain name presents itself, constitute use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited vs. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003,).

The Panel therefore 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 Domain Name <trodat.world> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 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/