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

Studierendenwerk Stuttgart v. Tesmin Wright

Case No. D2016-0829

1. The Parties

Complainant is Studierendenwerk Stuttgart of Stuttgart, Germany, represented by BRP Renaud und Partner mbB, Germany.

Respondent is Tesmin Wright of Seatac, Washington, United States of America ("United States").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <studierendenwerk-stuttgart.com> 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 April 26, 2016. On April 27, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 28, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On May 4, 2016, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 proceedings commenced on May 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on May 27, 2016.

The Center appointed Peter Wild as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 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 organized as a German institution under Public Law. It is active in the field of advising and supporting students in a range of fields including finances, housing and other aspects of student life. Complainant owns German trademark registration 302014036664 STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART and device, filed on August 11, 2014 and registered on September 30, 2014 and the domain name <studierendenwerk-stuttgart.de> which points to a portal for its services.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <studierenenwerk-stuttgart.com> on April 2, 2015. When this Panel visited the website under the disputed domain name on June 3, 2016, a website with information on visual effects and user-targeted advertising was visible.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

According to Complainant, it is organized as a German institution under Public Law. It is active in the field of advising and supporting students in a range of fields including finances, housing and other aspects of student life. Complainant owns German trademark registration 302014036664 STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART and device, filed on August 11 2014 and registered on September 30, 2014 and the domain name <www.studierendenwerk-stuttgart.de> which points to a portal for its services.

Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its German trademark STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART and device, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it is using and has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith by copying the website operated under Complainant's domain name.

Complainant further claims that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's German trademark STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART and device consists of the words STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART and a smaller, colored device element. This Panel finds that there is dominance of the word elements in this trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Also, as figurative, stylized or design elements in a trademark are incapable of being represented in a domain name, such elements are typically disregarded for the purpose of assessing identity or confusing similarity, with such assessment generally being between the alpha-numeric components of the domain name, and the dominant textual components of the relevant mark.

See Casa Editorial El Tiempo, S.A. v. Montanya Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0103.

The panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark and the first element of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website which looks exactly like Complainant's website, most unfortunately without submitting corresponding evidence so that the Panel cannot conclusively rely on the allegation as the basis of this decision.

Whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name must be assessed taking into account the manner in which Respondent uses the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Respondent's conduct could be characterized as legitimate and thus permissible. There is no reference to any services which could be legitimately connected to STUDIERENDENWERK STUTTGART. Further, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of Respondent's comments, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its burden to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent intentionally chose the disputed domain name which is similar to Complainant's trademark. Given that the trademark registration predates the disputed domain name and that Respondent did not rebut said allegation in the circumstances of this case, which the Panel finds an indication that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

Complainant alleges that Respondent copied its website content. Complainant failed to submit evidence of such allegation and therefore, this cannot be the basis of this decision. The Panel visited Respondent's website under the disputed domain name on June 3, 2016, when a website with information on visual effects and user-targeted advertising was visible. This Panelist finds that Respondent is deemed responsible for content appearing on a website at the disputed domain name, even if Respondent may not be exercising direct control over such content - for example, in the case of advertising links appearing on an "automatically" generated basis. It is reasonable to assume that profit or "commercial gain" was made by Respondent or a third party, such as by the operator of an advertising revenue arrangement applicable to the registrant, or a domain name parking service used by the Respondent.

Respondent's website also offers a range of tutorials for download, indicating payment options from credit cards to bitcoin. This shows that the website intends to make commercial gain. The content which can be downloaded in the form of tutorials may also create an association with Complainant's student related services. As no such association exists, Respondent's behavior constitutes bad faith use for the purposes of the Policy.

Given the above evidence and the fact that Complainant's German trademark predates the disputed domain name by almost 8 months, the Panel finds the third element of the policy has been met.

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 <studierendenwerk-stuttgart.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Peter Wild
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 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/