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

Covestro Deutschland AG v. Ketsaree Wongwittaya

Case No. D2019-0430

1. The Parties

Complainant is Covestro Deutschland AG of Leverkusen, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.

Respondent is Ketsaree Wongwittaya of Bangkok, Thailand.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <covesrto.com> is registered with Marcaria.com International, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 23, 2019. On February 25, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 26, 2019.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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

Complainant is a large German polymers corporation that arose from Bayer AG, a well-known chemicals and pharmaceuticals company. In 2015, Complainant spun off as a separate legal entity - a move which received considerable press coverage worldwide. Complainant has a global presence, with a subsidiary in Thailand and around thirty production sites in Europe, Asia, and the United States. Complainant also operates several regional facilities around the world. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for its COVESTRO mark, including International Registration No. 1,272,950, registered on July 28, 2015, for classes 01, 02, 17, 19, 25, 40, 42 and European Union Trademark No. 13,701,412, registered on May 15, 2015, for classes 01, 02, 17, 19, 25, 40, 42.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 4, 2019. Respondent’s website consists of a single webpage with a few graphics and lines of text relating to automation.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, which is an invented portmanteau of the words “collaboration,” “invest,” and “strong.” In Complainant’s belief, the disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious, and intentional misspelling of the COVESTRO mark.

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the COVESTRO mark. Respondent has not been licensed by Complainant to use its mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent also has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, according to Complainant.

Regarding bad faith, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s website is merely a placeholder and is being passively held. Because the COVESTRO mark is unique and invented by Complainant, Complainant contends that Respondent could not have legitimately chosen the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with the intention of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Complainant asserts that all of these facts demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the COVESTRO mark through its European Union and international trademark registrations. The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of the COVESTRO mark. A domain name which consists of an intentionally misspelling of a trademark is considered confusingly similar to the trademark. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. Given Complainant’s fame, it is more likely than not that Respondent intentionally misspelled the COVESTRO mark in the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has presented a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has failed to rebut. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Because the COVESTRO mark is a term invented by Complainant, the mark is highly distinctive. The mark’s distinctiveness makes it unlikely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s COVESTRO mark. Further, the fact that Respondent registered a domain name comprising a typo of Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration. Admiral Group Plc and EUI Limited v. Cimpress Schweiz, Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0043.

Additionally, the content of Respondent’s website supports an inference of bad faith use. The website consists of a single webpage with minimal information. Respondent appears to be using the website as a placeholder to create the illusion of legitimate use. This evidences bad faith. See Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. Frans Noordermeer, WIPO Case No. D2016-2440; Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Mohd Daoud, WIPO Case No. D2016-1380.

Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name <covesrto.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: April 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/