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

F5 Networks, Inc. v. Bohdan Artemchuk

Case No. D2017-0752

1. The Parties

The Complainant is F5 Networks, Inc. of Seattle, Washington, United States of America (“United States”) represented by Rosen Lewis, PLLC, United States.

The Respondent is Bohdan Artemchuk of Lutsk, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <f5.wtf> (the “Domain Name”) 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 14, 2017. On April 18, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 19, 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.

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 April 24, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 15, 2017.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 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 has registered the trade mark F5 as a word mark in the United States as of September 9, 1997, for web related and computer software services with first use recorded as in1996.

The Domain Name was registered on November 3, 2015, and has been used in connection with a website offering services competing with those of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant has registered the trade mark F5 as a word mark in many countries throughout the world including the United States.

The Domain Name is identical with Complainant’s registered mark.

The Respondent prominently and pervasively uses the Complainant’s F5 marks without authorization or licence to defraud Internet and other users by using those marks for services that are confusingly similar to web and cloud services creating a high likelihood that consumers will be confused and mistakenly believe the Complainant is associated with or endorses the Respondent.

The Respondent has no rights or interests in the Complainant’s F5 marks.

The Domain Name appears to have been registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s F5 marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location of a product or service on the Respondent’s website.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s F5 mark (which is registered in, inter alia, the United States for web related services with first use in commerce recorded as in 1996 and registered on September 9, 1997), and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.wtf”.

The gTLD “.wtf” is marketed as the new gTLD that indicates “you won’t believe this!”. As such, it merely indicates there may be something of interest about the subject of the distinctive part of a domain name. Accordingly, the gTLD “.wtf” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the F5 mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such, the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark, at all, or in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint to give any explanation why it would be allowed to register and use a domain name which is effectively identical to the Complainant’s F5 mark for competing services to the Complainant about 20 years after the Complainant began using and registered this mark.

The Respondent uses the Complainant’s F5 mark prominently on its website to offer competing services. The site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant and it could be taken to be an official site of the Complainant. The Panel agrees that this use is confusing and deceptive.

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Considering the fact that the Complainant’s trademark was registered approximately 20 years ago and that the Complainant and Respondent are operating in the same specialist business field, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights when registering the Domain Name.

In the opinion of the Panel, the use of the Domain Name in relation to the site connected to it is confusing in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it appears to offer services under a Domain Name and on a website containing the Complainant’s mark for similar services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and (iii).

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 <f5.wtf> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 21, 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/