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

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Bhavesh Tank, KUTCH WEB INFO

Case No. D2017-0934

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, UK.

The Respondent is Bhavesh Tank, KUTCH WEB INFO of Bhuj, Gujarat, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <virginpvcpipe.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 May 9, 2017. On May 9, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 10, 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 May 19, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 9, 2017.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 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 intellectual property holder for the Virgin Group of Companies (the “Virgin Group”). The Virgin Group originated in 1970, when the founder began selling music records under the VIRGIN name, and has since expanded into a wide variety of businesses in the main sectors travel and leisure, telecommunications, music and entertainment, financial services, and health and wellness. Today, the Virgin Group comprises over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries, with a total number of employees of over 40,000 and an annual group turnover in excess of GBP 4.6 billion.

The Complainant has numerous registered trademarks for the term VIRGIN. Those marks are used extensively throughout the world to promote a variety of products and services. The marks are very
well-known around the world.

The Complainant currently licenses its VIRGIN marks to approximately 60 licensees, who generally use the VIRGIN mark in conjunction with an additional word, e.g., VIRGIN ATLANTIC, VIRGIN MEDIA, VIRGIN HOLIDAYS, VIRGIN MOBILE, VIRGIN MONEY and VIRGIN TRAINS. The Complainant is also the owner of over 4,500 domain names incorporating the VIRGIN mark alone or with an additional element.

The disputed domain name <virginpvcpipe.com> was registered on May 18, 2016. The disputed domain name currently resolves to the website of Umiya Poly Plast Industries, an Indian manufacturer and supplier of PVC pipes.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In summary, the Complainant contends the following:

The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and which the public has become accustomed to seeing. The “virgin” element of the disputed domain name stands out the most, and the addition of “pvcpipe” does not assist in avoiding confusion.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name VIRGIN or virginpvcpipe. The name of the company using the disputed domain name is Umiya Poly Plastic Industries. The Respondent has no trade mark registrations for VIRGIN nor has it used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The only reason the Respondent is using the disputed domain name is to divert traffic to its website, which does not constitute legitimate use.

According to the Complainant, this is a classic example of bad faith registration. Given the scale of the Complainant’s operation and the fame of the VIRGIN brand, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent would not have known about the Complainant’s marks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. It is therefore likely that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name assuming that the Complainant would become aware of the registration and would offer it valuable consideration in return for transferring the disputed domain name. By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has also created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, resulting in the attraction of Internet users to the website, with the aim of commercial gain.

The Complainant further states that the circumstances surrounding the case and the manner of use of the disputed domain name could also indicate that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name or for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark VIRGIN, with the added element “pvcpipe”. In the case at hand, it is difficult to believe that there is no intended correlation between the disputed domain name and the VIRGIN trademark, because “virgin” is not an adjective commonly associated with PVC pipes.

The fact that the Complainant has an extensive reputation for a series of marks comprising VIRGIN followed by a key word describing a business is likely to create the impression in the minds of Internet users that the website connected to the disputed domain name is in some way related to the Complainant or the Virgin Group.

The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the website connected to the disputed domain name is currently used to advertise the products of the company Umiya Poly Plastic Industries, which seems to be a legitimate business manufacturing and selling PVC pipes, this does not, in and of itself, constitute usage in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Although the Respondent may be operating a legitimate business, this does not give it a right to use a domain name which incorporates and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the VIRGIN trademark.

Furthermore, it does not appear that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or has any other basis for demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In summary, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In view of the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds it plausible that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or of the products presented on the website, as foreseen in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. This conclusion is enforced by the fact that the website itself does not contain any further mention of the term VIRGIN. The only purpose of using this term in the domain name seems to be to attract those customers who might be looking for products associated with the Complainant.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, thus fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <virginpvcpipe.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: July 18, 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/