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

Minerva S.A. v. Oneandone Private Registration, 1&1 Internet Inc. / Maria Nobree

Case No. D2018-0765

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Minerva S.A. of Barretos, Brazil, represented by Opice Blum, Brazil.

The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration, 1&1 Internet Inc. of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America / Maria Nobree of Ternopil, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <minerrvafoods.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 10, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 11, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 16, 2018.

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 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2018.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 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 is the owner of the trade mark MINERVA filed January 21, 2004 and registered on December 5, 2017 in Brazil for food products including meat.

The Domain Name registered on December 4, 2017 has been used for a fraudulent email scam using the name of one of the Complainant’s employees.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MINERVA filed January 21, 2004 and registered on December 5, 2017 in Brazil for food products including meat. Its trade mark rights extend back to the time of filing of its registration and first use in 2004.

The Domain Name registered December 4, 2017 contains a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MINERVA mark, adding an additional “r” and making the sign “minerrvafoods” which is the Complainant’s corporate name with that simple typo. The additional letter “r” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has no authorisation from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name has been used for an email scam using the name of one of the Complainant’s employees and this cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial fair use being registration and use in bad faith.

Typosquatting in itself is registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MINERVA trade mark (registered in Brazil for, inter alia, meat on December 5, 2017 with rights going back to date of filing in 2004), the additional letter “r”, the dictionary word “foods” and the gTLD “.com”. Adding an additional letter, the word “foods” and a gTLD does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s MINERVA mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration designed to be mistaken for the Complainant’s corporate name Minerva Foods and the Complainant’s MINERVA mark.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent email scheme using the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

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.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The addition in the Domain Name of the letter “r” to the Complainant’s MINERVA trade mark constitutes typosquatting designed to confuse Internet users. This amounts to bad faith registration and use under the Policy.

Impersonating the Complainant by use of the Complainant’s mark and the name of one of its employees in a fraudulent email scam is disruptive and also evinces bad faith registration and use.

Further, such use in relation to an email scam is confusing in that recipients of the emails may reasonably believe those emails are connected to or approved by the Complainant. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights at the time Domain Name was registered and constitutes passing off. Accordingly, the Panel holds additionally that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of electronic content on the Internet under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

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. There is no need to consider any additional grounds of bad faith.

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 <minerrvafoods.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 21, 2018

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/