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

SIEMENS AG v. Mr. Evren Akagunduz

Case No. D2016-1725

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SIEMENS AG of Munich, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke, Germany.

The Respondent is Mr. Evren Akagunduz of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <siemens-servis.org> (the "Domain Name"), is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 24, 2016. On August 24, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 25, 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 August 26, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 16, 2016.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 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, whose headquarters are in Germany, is a large electrical engineering and electronics company, which trades worldwide under the name "Siemens".

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of inter alia European Union Trade Mark No. 4240263 SIEMENS (figurative, the word appearing in bold capital letters) registered on March 28, 2006 (application filed January 14, 2005) for a variety of goods and services relating to its business.

The Domain Name was registered on August 20, 2013 and it is currently inactive. Prior to its expiry on August 20, 2016 the Domain Name was connected to a Turkish language website which appears to have been trading in and/or offering other services in respect of the Complainant's household appliances, such as washing machines, dish-washers, televisions etc. The website featured a prominent representation of the Complainant's SIEMENS trade mark in the Complainant's house colour.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SIEMENS registered trade mark, 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 incorporates the Complainant's SIEMENS trade mark and additional descriptive matter at the second level, which does nothing to diminish the distinctiveness of the trade mark. In the case of the Domain Name, the generic ".org" Top Level Domain identifier serves no distinctive purpose and may be ignored for the purpose of the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

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

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is unconnected with the Complainant, having no permission to use the Complainant's trade mark. The Complainant acknowledges, however, that the Respondent's website, a commercial website, was concerned with the Complainant's household appliances.

To what extent is it reasonable for a reseller (or repairer) of goods to use for (or as part of) a domain name the original manufacturer's trade mark? The issue is addressed in paragraph 2.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), which poses the question: "Can a reseller/distributor of trademarked goods or services have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name which contains such trademark?" At this stage, for present purposes it is only necessary to quote the first part of the so-called "consensus view":

"Normally, a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements. These requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site's accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder. The respondent must also not try to "corner the market" in domain names that reflect the trademark. Many panels subscribing to this view have also found that not only authorized but also unauthorized resellers may fall within such Oki Data1 principles."

In this case the Respondent appears to have been offering retailing and/or repair services in relation to the Complainant's goods. The evidence in respect of the Respondent's website is in Turkish, which is not a language with which the Panel is familiar. The Panel will assume in the Respondent's favour that the Respondent deals/dealt exclusively in the Complainant's goods. Where the Respondent's position fails to meet the test set out above is on the next requirement, namely that the site does not appear to accurately and prominently disclose the registrant's relationship with the trade mark holder. The Respondent is an unauthorized reseller, yet the prominent use of the Complainant's SIEMENS trade mark in the Complainant's house colour would, in the view of the Panel, indicate to most visitors a degree of official authorization. It appears to the Panel to be an official website of or authorized by the Complainant.

Thus the Respondent's use of the Domain Name fails to pass the test set out in paragraph 2.3 of WIPO Overview 2.0.

In the Panel's view, in selecting the Domain Name, a domain name comprising at the second level the Complainant's trade mark and the descriptive word "servis", which is said to be the Turkish for "service", for a website appearing to be an official website of or authorized by the Complainant, the Respondent is falsely claiming to be an official dealer in the Complainant's products.

In the Panel's view a business operating in this guise cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. There appears to the Panel to be a serious risk that visitors will be attracted to the website in the erroneous belief that the website is an official website of or authorized by the Complainant.

In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent 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

On the same basis and in the absence of anything from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of 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, <siemens-servis.org>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: October 3, 2016

1 Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.

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/