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

DBG Group Investments, LLC v. Viktor Masurkevich

Case No. D2017-1159

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DBG Group Investments, LLC of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Viktor Masurkevich of Makeeva, Ukraine, self- represented.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <ecoquest-air.com> and <ecoquestair.com> are registered with Center of Ukrainian Internet Names (UKRNAMES).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2017. On June 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 26, 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. Pursuant to the Complaint submitted in English and the Registrar’s confirmation that Russian is the language of the registration agreement, on June 26, 2017 the Center requested Parties to submit their comments on the language of the proceeding. On June 28, 2017, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding, by reference to the Complaint. The Respondent submitted its comments on the language of the proceeding on June 29, 2017 requesting Ukrainina as the language of the proceeding, and asserting that it leased the disputed domain names to a third party. On July 3, 2017, the Complainant submitted its comments on the Respondent’s contention that the disputed domain names are leased to the third party.

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 July 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 24, 2017. On July 19, 2017 the Respondent filed a request for extension of the deadline for submission of the Response. On July 21, 2017 the Complainant submitted its comments on the Respondent’s request for extension asking the Center to deny it or at least significantly shorten the extension. Finally, the Response was filed with the Center on July 24, 2017.

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 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 acquired the majority of EcoQuest International’s assets in 2009, including the ECOQUEST mark. The Complainant uses the ECOQUEST mark through its subsidiary and licensee, Vollara, which provides air and water purification systems, healthy home products, including indoor purifiers.

The Complainant is an owner of the US trademark registration for the ECOQUEST word mark (No. 3062066), registered on February 28, 2006 for goods and services in class 35. The trademark registration was renewed for the period of 10 years on October 19, 2016.

The disputed domain name <ecoquestair.com> was registered on August 10, 2010, whereas the disputed domain name <ecoquest-air.com> was registered on July 9, 2014.

The websites hosted at the disputed domain names are identical and offer water and air purifiers.

The Complainant and its affiliates brought an action against the business “Ecoquest Air Repair” in Texas state court for trademark infringement and cybersquatting. On January 13, 2016, the court granted a default judgment against Ecoquest Air Repair awarding money damages and transfer of the <ecoquestair.com> domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Firstly, the Complainant contended that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ECOQUEST mark as they both contain it in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the mere addition of the word “air” after the ECOQUEST mark in the disputed domain names or the use of an additional hyphen in one of them does not undermine the confusing similarity. Moreover, the Complainant submitted that the word “air” is obviously related to the Complainant’s business of selling, among other products, air purifiers.

Secondly, the Complainants argued that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as it is not using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant emphasized that the Respondent has never been authorized or licensed by the Complainant or its subsidiaries to use their marks or to sell their products. The Complainant pointed out that the websites hosted at the disputed domain names offer substantially similar and/or counterfeit products. Additionally, the Complainant contended that it owns the FRESH AIR BY ECOQUEST mark which is explicitly used by the Respondent on the websites. The Complainant also claimed that the Respondent has never been legitimately (and commonly) known by the name “EcoQuest”.

Thirdly, the Complainant asserted that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant contended that the Respondent was using the ECOQUEST mark and selling substantially similar and/or counterfeit products in order to confuse the Internet users with the Complainant’s business. The Complainant emphasized that the Respondent had included a “News” section on the websites hosted at the disputed domain names containing information unrelated to the Respondent’s offerings and its own purported business – each of which predates the registrations of the domain names altogether. The Complainants also noticed that the websites claim a copyright date of 2005, years before either <ecoquestair.com> or <ecoquest-air.com> were registered.

B. Respondent

Firstly, in the communication of June 29, 2017, the Respondent stated that “domain names are leased to a third party, which is connected to me only by making rent payments for their use”.

Secondly, in the Response, the Respondent introduced itself in the following way: “Ecoquestair.com is a popular world-famous resource with a seven-year history, where innovative air cleaning products are being sold and which are shipped all over the world. One more important part of the brand - repair services for the cleaning products. Ecoquestair.com – is an integral name which is associated by customers with a complex approach which consists in selling and repairing of various innovative air cleaning products purchased in different places.” The Respondent also added that “All stated for domain Ecoquestair.com as argumentation should be considered as same for the domain Ecoquest-air.com”.

Thirdly, the Respondent asserted that the Complainant had not proven that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. According to the Respondent, each of the disputed domain names include “a combination of three words, which symbolize the brand regarding selling and repairing of progressive air cleaning products through the world market and the word “air” is an integral part of this brand”. The Respondent also emphasized that there were a few trademark registrations for the ECOQUEST mark worldwide which did not belong to the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s mark was registered only in the United States in class 35, whereas the Respondent served customers from all around the world offering various services and products in other classes, i.e. repairing. Consequently, the Respondent contended that since the Internet users had access to the Complainant’s website hosted at <vollara.com> only from the location of the Complainant, there was no risk of confusion between the ECOQUEST and the disputed domain names.

Fourthly, the Respondent claimed that the Complainant had not proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent emphasized that the Complainant had not even pointed any product which was supposed to be counterfeited. Moreover, according to the Respondent, all his products were sold legally on the websites hosted at the disputed domain names and they did not violate anyone’s rights. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant’s position that it allegedly sold the Complainant‘s products as a representative of the Complainant had not been proven as well since it offered for sale products by different brands. The Respondent also claimed that similarity of its products to the Complainant’s products was only a result of operating in the air purification industry. Moreover, the Respondent presented products offered under the disputed domain names which had absolutely no relation to the Complainant. The Respondent concluded that the business based on the said websites constituted bona fide offering of goods and services.

Lastly, the Respondent denied bad faith allegations made by the Complainant. It claimed that “only legitimate products are being sold within Ecoquestair.com and the list of such products is much longer then Complainant’s one”. The Respondent further asserted that it had not used the Complainant’s FRESH AIR BY ECOQUEST mark on it websites but only a generic phrase “fresh air”. The Respondent emphasized that the disputed domain names had neither been registered for the purpose of renting nor selling. It was also not supposed to confuse or mislead the Internet users.

6. Discussion and Findings

(i) Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested English to be the language of the administrative proceeding. The Complainant asserted that the disputed domain names, the websites that they resolve to and the ECOQUEST mark are in English. Thus, the Complainant finds that it would be

unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate to Russian or Ukrainian not only the

Complaint, but also the relevant content of the websites. The Respondent requested Ukrainian to be the language of the proceedings. The Response was filed in English.

Given the fact that the websites hosted at the disputed domain name are entirely in English and the Respondent presented a good knowledge of English during the proceedings, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to allow the proceeding to be conducted in English as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

(ii) Merits of the Case

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements. The three elements can be summarized as follows:

(i) the disputed domain name 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 in the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names <ecoquest-air.com> and <ecoquestair.com> contain the Complainant’s ECOQUEST mark in its entirety with addition of a generic word “air”. One of them includes also a hyphen.

In the Panel’s opinion, the mere addition of the generic word “air” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s mark. On the contrary, as the ECOQUEST mark is used in the air purifiers industry, this may even increase confusion of the Internet users who may think that the disputed domain names are owned by the Complainant or its authorized representative which is not the case. For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “.com” may be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic Top-Level Domain (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o., WIPO Case No. D2012-0607).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ECOQUEST mark and as a consequence, the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The overall burden of proof on this element rests with the Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition [“WIPO Overview 3.0”], section 2.1 and cases cited therein).

In the Panel’s opinion, the Complainant made a prima facie case. In particular, it presented screenshots from the websites that the disputed domain names resolve to and the website hosted at www.vollara.com” which prove that the products offer there are substantially similar. For example, the indoor purifier FreshAir Eco Box Cube which can be found under <ecoquest-air.com> and <ecoquestair.com> looks like the indoor purifier Airfresh Cube by Vollara and mirror the latter’s description (use of “ActivePure Technology, Certified SpaceTechnology™”). It substantiates the Complainant’s assertion that the websites hosted at <ecoquest-air.com> and <ecoquestair.com> offer either counterfeited goods or Vollara’s original products without its consent, while making the impression that they come from a legitimate source. The Panel also recognizes that the Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed the Respondent to use its mark. The Complainant has also no business relationship with the Respondent – the Respondent is not a reseller or distributor of the goods offered by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent admitted that it also offered products at the websites which were not affiliated with the Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering under the circumstances. (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.1).

The Respondent did not satisfy the said burden of production. The Respondent did not present any arguments nor evidence demonstrating the source of goods sold on his websites or rebutting the complainant’s contentions.

Thus, the Panel considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove the registration as well as use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy gives non-exhaustive illustrations of bad faith registration and use, including the following:

“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website 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 website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”

Firstly, there is a clear contradiction in the Respondent’s submission regarding the purpose of registering the disputed domain names. At the beginning he clearly stated that the disputed domain names were rented and he only receives remuneration for them. This contention was not developed in the Response in which the Respondent alleged that the disputed domain names were not registered in order to be sold, rented or to harm anyone’s business. Given the above, the Panel finds that registration of the domain names confusingly similar to the ECOQUEST mark was made in bad faith.

It is equally clear to this Panel that the disputed domain names were also used in bad faith. As deliberated above, the Complainant substantiated its claims in relation to the goods sold at the Respondent’s websites – they are presented in a way to confuse the Internet users as to their source. The Respondent did not even try to explain the fact that the websites claim a copyright date predating its registration. The Respondent also failed to discuss its connection to company EcoQuest Air Repair mentioned on both websites which was ordered by the American court to transfer the domain name <ecoquestair.com> to the Complainant and Vollara LLC. The above circumstances justify the finding that the disputed domain names were used in bad faith.

In the light of above, the Panel decides that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is 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 names, <ecoquest-air.com> and <ecoquestair.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: August 26, 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/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/