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

Lasaulec B.V. v. Trademark Worx, LLC

Case No. D2016-0592

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lasaulec B.V. of Heerenveen, Netherlands, represented by Van Zelm c.s. Advocaten, Netherlands.

The Respondent is Trademark Worx, LLC of Seoul, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lasaulec.com> is registered with Name.com LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 25, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 29, 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 proceeding commenced on April 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 3, 2016.

The Center appointed William A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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

As indicated by the Complainant on the record and as confirmed by the Panel's independent research, the trademark LASAULEC is registered with the Benelux Trademark Office. The date of registration of the LASAULEC mark is January 1, 2010.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 27, 2010.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

According to the Complainant the trademark LASAULEC is unique in the world, and no other organisations use the name or mark. Further the Complainant asserts that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to refer to a landing page which contains advertising links for competing businesses, which will confuse existing customers of the Complainant.

The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or authorized the use of its trademark LASAULEC. Nor is the Respondent known by the name LASAULEC or conduct any legitimate business under that name, according to the Complainant.

According to the Complainant several other UDRP cases have been resolved against the Respondent. This demonstrates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, preventing complainants from reflecting their trademarks in corresponding domain names. In this case the Complainant is also prevented from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. The Complainant asserts that it requires the disputed domain name to conduct its business.

Further, the Respondent did not use the mark LASAULEC before the registration date of the disputed domain name (September 27, 2010). According to the Complainant, when conducting a search for the term Lasaulec on the Internet, the Respondent would inevitably come across the Complainant's business. The Complainant previously registered the disputed domain name, but the Respondent registered the disputed domain name when the Complainant's registration expired. A letter of demand from the Complainant remained without response from the Respondent.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent had the intention of selling the disputed domain name for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's LASAULEC trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent's LASAULEC trademark is distinctive and has no generic meaning. The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or authorized the use of its LASAULEC trademark by the Respondent. The Respondent is not known by the name LASAULEC and does not and has not conducted any business under that trademark or business name. The disputed domain name resolves to a page where advertising links for competing businesses are to be found. No legitimate use is made of the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant's trademark, by the Respondent.

Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant's LASAULEC trademark is distinctive and has no generic meaning. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name at a time when the Complainant was in business and was present on the Internet. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety without variation or addition. The practice of registering a domain name that incorporates or consists of a complainant's trademark, to attract Internet users to a webpage displaying links to competing business constitutes a bad faith use of a domain name. The apparent intention of the Respondent is to derive a financial gain from the deceptive impression that the disputed domain name has a legitimate connection with or is operated by the Complainant. The Respondent did not answer the Complainant's letter of demand in relation to the disputed domain name. There is nothing before the Panel indicating that the Respondent has any legitimate reason to incorporate the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and used 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 <lasaulec.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 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/