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

Jacuzzi Inc. v. Gianpietro Da Re, Luxuryspa s.r.l.

Case No. D2017-0147

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jacuzzi Inc. of Chino Hills, California, United States of America, represented by Donahue Fitzgerald, United States of America.

The Respondent is Gianpietro Da Re, Luxuryspa s.r.l. of San Vendemiano, Italy, represented by BM&A - Barel Malvestio & Associati - Studio Legale, Italy.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jacuzzishipservice.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2017. On January 26, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 27, 2017, 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.

On February 7, 2017, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in English and Italian regarding the language of the proceedings. On February 11, 2017, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not submit any comments on the language of the proceedings.

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 February 14, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 6, 2017. The Response was filed with the Center on March 6, 2017. On March 14, 2017, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2017. 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 the owner of several registrations for the trademark JACUZZI, including United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registration no. 1,101,174 registered on September 5, 1978.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 18, 2014.

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website offering installation and maintenance services for “world leading brands in the spa industry, such as Jacuzzi, Rivierapool, Aquaviva and Astralpool”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its JACUZZI mark, and contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

B. Respondent

In its Response, albeit stating that it had made a bona fide use of the Complainant’s mark and that it had no intention to infringe the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent expressly consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant and agreed to cancel the Disputed Domain Name.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the proceeding

The Panel notes that, although the registration agreement is in Italian, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding and that the Respondent did not object to this request and filed its Response in English.

Therefore, the Panel determines that English is the language of the proceedings in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

6.2. Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:

(i) The Disputed Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

However, this Panel considers that the Respondent’s genuine unilateral consent to the remedy requested by the Complainant provides a basis for an order for transfer or cancellation without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. As was noted by the Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, when the Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent consents, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules (Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-0434; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).

The Panel has noticed that the Complainant requested the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Respondent stated that it consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant and agreed to cancel the Disputed Domain Name. This raises the question whether the Respondent consented to the transfer or to the cancellation, or both. Considering that the remedy requested by the Complainant is the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Respondent (who was represented by counsel) literally consented to the “remedy requested by the Complainant and agrees to cancel the disputed domain name”, the Panel concludes that the Respondent agreed to both the transfer and the cancellation. Because the Complainant requested the transfer (and not the cancellation), the Panel orders the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

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, <jacuzzishipservice.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2017

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/fr/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/