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

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group

Case No. D2018-0717

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Nanci Nette, Name Management Group of Los Angeles, California, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <fwikipedia.org> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 3, 2018, 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 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2018.

The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2018. 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, The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., manages free knowledge projects, including the famous WIKIPEDIA online encyclopedia. The Complainant owns many registrations for the WIKIPEDIA Mark, the oldest of which were registered in 2006. The Respondent registered the Domain Name <fwikipedia.org> on November 13, 2017, which it uses to redirect traffic to third-party websites, which allegedly disseminate malware.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is a nonprofit charitable organization that manages 13 free knowledge projects maintained by volunteers. The most-well-known project is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, found at “www.wikipedia.org”. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the trademark WIKPEDIA (the “Mark”) in the United States and worldwide. UDRP panels have found that the Mark is

well-known.

The disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark, and is an example of typo-squatting.

The Respondent has no legitimate interest on the Domain Name. It is not authorized by the Complainant in any manner. It does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Currently, the Domain Name is being used to redirect to websites that allegedly disseminate malware.

The Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s famous Mark. The Respondent likely diverts traffic to unrelated sites for a fee.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant, Wikimedia, has used the WIKIPEDIA trademark (the “Mark”) since 2001 in connection with an online encyclopedia found at “www.wikipedia.org.” It owns numerous trademark registrations for the Mark including United States registration no. 3,040,722, registered January 10, 2006.

The domain name <fwikipedia.org> is confusingly similar to the Mark, as it incorporates the Mark in its entirety with only the addition of the letter “f”. There is no evidence that FWIKIPEDIA is a word in any language, is pronounceable in any language, or has an independent meaning in any context. “WIKIPEDIA”, a coined term, is the visual dominant element of the Domain Name. The Panel takes notice of the fact that when one enters “fwikipedia” as a search term in the Google search engine, Google treats that term as the equivalent of the term “wikipedia”.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar, as outlined in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second ground to be demonstrated by the Complainant, according to the provisions of the Policy, is the Respondent’s absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, per paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that it is sufficient for a complainant to prove a prima facie case that the respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 and Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Once a prima facie case is shown, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the WIKIPEDIA trademark in a domain name or in any other manner. The Complainant alleges that there is no such connection here.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent uses the Domain Name to direct traffic to, among other sites, third party sites that distribute malware. As discussed further below in Section C, the distribution of malware is obviously not a bona fide offering of goods.

The Respondent has not submitted any reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

Therefore, in light of the Complainant’s prima facie case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has shown that its WIKIPEDIA Mark is well-known. In the absence of evidence that the letter string “fwikipedia” has any independent meaning, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is a

typo-site, and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to use it to redirect Internet users to pages with malware or spyware by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known mark.

Furthermore, the dissemination of malware through a predictable typo-variant is often used to steal consumer information for commercial gain and this is evidence of bad faith. See Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Walter Gerbert, WIPO Case No. D2016-1346.

Furthermore, the Panel may make negative inferences arising from the Respondent’s failure to respond. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.

The Panel finds that in light of all the circumstances of this case the Complainant has established that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as outlined in 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 <fwikipedia.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2018