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

Mr. Olufela Olufemi Anikulapo Kuti v. Domain Administrator, NameFind LLC

Case No. D2016-0575

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mr. Olufela Olufemi Anikulapo Kuti of Lagos, Nigeria, represented by Olajide Oyewole LLP, Nigeria.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, NameFind LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <femikuti.com> (the "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 March 23, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 24, 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").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 20, 2016.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 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 Nigerian musician who uses the stage name "Femi Kuti". He claims to have started out on his own in 1986, having previously performed as a member of his father's band.

The Domain Name was registered on June 10, 2004 and is connected to a pay-per-click webpage featuring links to a number of sites offering for sale the Complainant's records and/or tickets to the Complainant's concerts along with links to commercial websites offering goods such as household products unconnected to the Complainant. The page indicates that the Domain Name is for sale and invites an approach to Afternic.com.

In early January, 2016 the Complainant's manager approached Afternic.com and enquired as to the price for the Domain Name. Afternic.com responded in the capacity of a broker and, according to the Complainant (the exhibit purporting to show the pricing information does not feature a price), named a price of USD 1,799.00.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's stage name, in which he claims unregistered trade mark rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's stage name, "Femi Kuti", and the ".com" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") identifier. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is permissible to ignore the gTLD identifier where, as here, it serves no more than a technical function.

The Complainant has no trade mark registration covering his stage name, but claims unregistered trade mark rights in respect of it having over an extensive period developed what he claims to be a substantial goodwill derived from his use of the name as a source identifier for his services as a musician. In support of his claim to unregistered trade mark rights, the Complainant cites a number of matters including nine albums issued in his name, several films upon which he has worked, the fact that he has been inducted into a prestigious Nigerian Hall of Fame and the fact that he has been nominated on four occasions for Grammy Awards.

But these claims are all bare assertions. There is very little in the way of supporting documentary evidence and it is well established that for the purpose of establishing unregistered trade mark rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy hard supporting evidence is required. Bare assertions are not enough (see paragraph 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition). However, and very fortunately for the Complainant, the advertising links on the Respondent's own website demonstrate that the Complainant has been performing and making records under his stage name since at least 1999 and that he has achieved a sufficient standard of fame for there to be a "Femi Kuti Concert" at the Royal Albert Hall in London in about two months time from the date of this decision. One of the Respondent's advertising links is offering tickets for the event.

In light of this evidence provided through the Respondent's website, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is likely to have established unregistered trade mark rights in respect of his stage name for the purposes of the UDRP. The Panel notes that the Respondent is not in a strong position to challenge this given the nature of the pay-per-click links on the website to which the Domain Name connects; moreover, the Respondent has not challenged the Complainant's claim to unregistered trade mark rights.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has recited the sets of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which are indicative of rights and legitimate interests in respect of a domain name, and asserts on information and belief that none of them is applicable.

The Complainant asserts that he is not associated with the Respondent and has not granted the Respondent any permission to use his stage name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case calling for an answer from the Respondent.

In the absence of any answer from the Respondent, and the Panel being unable to conceive of any way in which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The unchallenged contention of the Complainant is that the Respondent is using the Domain Name (i.e. the Complainant's stage name) to attract pay-per-click revenue. On the evidence before the Panel, the Panel is unable to conceive of any other reason for the Respondent to have chosen such an unusual (perhaps unique) name for its domain name, unless of course it be to attract offers to purchase the Domain Name and thereby derive a profit. As to this latter point, the Complainant has produced evidence to show that the Respondent is using a broker to facilitate sale of the Domain Name.

In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of either paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy or paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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, <femikuti.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: April 28, 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/