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

Meteosolutions S.r.l. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2017-1288

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Meteosolutions S.r.l. of Ponte San Pietro, Bergamo, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati - Studio Legale, Italy.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <3bmeteo.pro> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 4, 2017. On July 4, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 5, 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 July 12, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 1, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2017.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 8, 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 an Italian company established in 1999, provider of weather forecast to consumers, media and enterprises through the brand 3BMETEO. The Complainant’s official website “www.3bmeteo.com” is visited by 12 million users monthly, with over 160 million pages already visited. The Complainant is also the owner of other domain names such as <3bmeteo.com> and <3bmeteo.it>. 3BMETEO has a wide presence in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google Plus.

The Complainant owns among others Italian trademark registration no. 1357973, granted on October 15, 2010, in classes 38, 41 and 42, and European Union trademark registration no. 14559785, granted on January 10, 2016, in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42. Both for the trademark 3BMETEO.

At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to an Internet site which exactly reproduced the name, the layout, the graphics and the contents of the Complainant’s site. At the time of drafting this decision, the Domain Name resolves to a warning page informing the Panel “yourconnection is not private, attackers might be trying to steal your information from 3bmeteo.pro (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards)”. The Domain Name was registered on April 4, 2017 and will expire on April 3, 2018.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits that its trademark is famous. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s prior trademark 3BMETEO. The trademark is registered at a national and international level. Likewise, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s prior domain names <3bmeteo.com> and <3bmeteo.it> used by the Complainant for more than 17 years.

The Complainant argues further that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the 3BMETEO trademark. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has not found any fair or noncommercial uses of the Domain Name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been known by any name or trade name that incorporates 3BMETEO. The Domain Name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s distinctive and well known trademark at the time of the registration of the Domain Name. Under any circumstance, if the Respondent had carried even a Google search in respect of the wording “3bmeteo”, it would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. Further, the Domain Name is not used for any bona fide offering. The Domain Name is connected to a website which is an exact clone of the Complainant’s official website. The present circumstances indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the Respondent’s website, which is an unauthorized and outdated version of the genuine one, and it includes several external advertising. There is also reason to believe that the Respondent’s website contains malwares that may spread among Internet users’ devices. Lastly, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.pro”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name resolves to an unauthorized and outdated version of the Complainant’s genuine webpage, and includes external advertising. Such use may not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

There is no evidence on the record to show that the Respondent is generally known by the Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case which the Respondent has not rebutted. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant has used its trademark long before the registration of the Domain Name.

Moreover, the Domain Name is not used for any bona fide offering. The Domain Name is connected to a website which is a copy of the Complainant’s official website, which indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. Internet users are confusingly led to the Respondent’s website, which is an unauthorized and outdated version of the genuine one, and it includes external advertising. There is also the likely possibility that the Respondent’s website contains malware. Finally, the Respondent has not objected to the Complainant’s allegations.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name, <3bmeteo.pro>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 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/