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

Kettle & Barebells Functional Foods AB v. Alexander Bell

Case No. D2018-2885

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Kettle & Barebells Functional Foods AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Alexander Bell of Bern, Switzerland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <barebeils.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 18, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 20, 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 December 20, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 20, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to 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 December 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 11, 2019.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 17, 2019. 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 a functional food company, launched in 2016, that specializes in protein-enriched foods. The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BAREBELLS registered as a European Union Mark (No. 016487671) and International mark (No. 1386703) in 2017 for food products. It owns <barebells.com>.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 does not resolve to an active web site and has been used for email scams using the name of one of the officers of the Complainant and the Complainant’s name and logo.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BAREBELLS registered as a European Union Mark and International mark in 2017. It owns <barebells.com>.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, having replaced only one “l” with the letter “i”.

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site but has been used for email scams impersonating an officer of the Complainant and using the Complainant’s name and logo. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith.

The use of the name of an officer of the Complainant and the Complainant’s logo shows the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, which coupled together with the fraudulent use of the Domain Name, establishes bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines a misspelling of the Complainant’s BAREBELLS mark (registered as a European Union and International Mark for food products from 2017) and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. An “i” has been used because of its similarity to the letter “l” so that the Domain Name resembles the Complainant’s mark.

The addition of a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it.

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark or a sign confusingly similar to it for similar services. 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, having used a privacy service for the WhoIs details of the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has been used in fraudulent email schemes using the name of an officer of the Complainant and the Complainant’s name and logo. This is designed to be deceptive and confusing and pass off the Respondent as the Complainant. As such, it cannot amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate 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.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Impersonating a complainant by use of the complainant’s mark in a fraudulent email scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use.

In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to a fraudulent email scam is confusing in that recipients of any such mails would reasonably believe those emails are connected to or approved by the Complainant as a misspelling of the Complainant’s trade mark, the name of an officer of the Complainant and the Complainant’s logo would be used. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights. Accordingly, the Panel holds 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 paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.

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 element of the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(iv). 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 <barebeils.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2019

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/