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

University of Connecticut v. Fumii Tutikane

Case No. D2016-0862

1. The Parties

The Complainant is University of Connecticut of Storrs, Connecticut, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Fumii Tutikane of Shunanshi, Yamaguchi, Japan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <uconnwbb.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 28, 2016. On April 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 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 proceedings commenced on May 10, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 30, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 31, 2016.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 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, the University of Connecticut – abbreviated as UConn – is a public university in Connecticut in the United States. The abbreviation UConn has been used since at least 1939. The Complainant is the registrant of a United States Federal Trademark Registrations for UCONN, Reg. Nos. 3005534 and 3448597 issued on October 11, 2005 and June 17, 2008 as well as respectively; in the European Union, Reg. No. 90605 issued on July 9, 1998; and in China, Reg. No. 6569163 issued on May 14, 2011.

The disputed domain name <uconnwbb.com> was originally registered in 2011 and, with the consent of the Complainant was used by the then registrant to provide information concerning the UConn women's basketball team. In 2014 that arrangement came to an end and the domain name was transferred to a WhoIs privacy service.

In 2015 the disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent.

The Respondent is an individual based in Japan.

The dispute domain name currently resolves to pages written in Japanese that include advertisements for prostitution services article about extra-marital affairs and other sexual matters.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <uconnwbb.com> is made entirely up of the registered trademark UCONN and the letters "wbb" (an abbreviation for "women's basketball") to which the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" has been added. It is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark UCONN.

No rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for UCONN or marks incorporating UCONN.

Registered and used in bad faith

The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant's rights in the UCONN trademark and registered the disputed domain name to attract business to its website. The Complainant relies on two UDRP decisions that have found that the use of a domain name for pornographic website or for websites offering adult services or material amounts to registration and use in bad faith. These decisions are: L'Oréal v. Robert Caceres, Dollarviews, WIPO Case No. D2015-1200 and Novartis Ag v. Susan Christensen, WIPO Case No. D2015-0476.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not respond to the proceedings.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <uconnwbb.com> is made up of the abbreviation UCONN, the letters "wbb" and the gTLD ".com". The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark UCONN. The first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

The Panel notes that the Complainant does not have a registered trademark for UCONN in Japan.

The ownership of a trademark is generally considered to be a threshold standing issue. The location of the trademark, its date of registration (or first use) and the goods and/or services for which it is registered, are all irrelevant for the purpose of finding rights in a trademark under the first element of the UDRP. Such factors may, however, bear on a panel's determination whether the respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith under the third element of the UDRP. (See paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0")).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 provides:

"While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP".

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.

The second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The key issue in this case is whether the disputed domain name was registered and in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant relies on paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:

"by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location".

The Complainant argues in particular that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known mark and use of that domain name for a pornographic website or for websites offering adult services or material amounts to registration and use in bad faith.

This latter argument is particularly important in this case. The content of the website does not appear to make or suggest any direct link to the Complainant. Nevertheless, no explanation has been offered by the Respondent as to why the disputed domain name <uconnwbb.com> was acquired, nor is any apparent from the website under the disputed domain name. Based on the available record, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is in someway trying to trade off the Complainant's goodwill.

The advertising of prostitution services and article on extra-marital affairs will certainly tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant. A trademark owner such as the Complainant, an institution of higher learning, should be able to control the services with which its trademark is associated.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The third part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

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 <uconnwbb.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: June 29, 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/