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

OfferUp, Inc. v. Uconnect Marketing Management

Case No. DAE2018-0005

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OfferUp, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Perkins Coie, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Uconnect Marketing Management of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
internally-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <offerup.ae> (the "Domain Name") is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 1, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 3, 2018, AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) 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 UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the "Policy"), the Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, sections 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, section 5(a), the due date for Response was June 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 26, 2018. On the same date, the Respondent submitted an informal email communication.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as panelist in this matter on July 5, 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, section 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was founded in 2011 and provides an online marketplace for local buyers and sellers. OfferUp is a web and mobile app that allows users to sell their goods online by posting a picture to the OfferUp website, browse local offers, make offers on the deals they find, and send instant messages between sellers and potential buyers. Since 2011, the Complainant has owned and operated a website at "www.offerup.com" in connection with these services, with more than 50 million app downloads, facilitating billions of United States Dollars of sales of goods annually.

The Complainant is the proprietor of United States trademark number 4267416 OFFERUP, registered on January 1, 2013.

The Domain Name was registered on October 21, 2017. It resolves to a website in the English language (the "Respondent's Website") apparently offering identical services to those of the Complainant. It also allows users to sell their goods online by posting a picture on the Respondent's Website, browse offers, make offers on the deals they find, and send messages between sellers and potential buyers.

5. Parties' Contentions

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its OFFERUP trademark (the "Mark"), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and/or is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of section 6(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. In response to the Center's sending the Respondent notification of its default, the Respondent sent an email to the Center on June 26, 2018 stating "I dont know who you are and that is my domain name in uae".

6. Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its consistent use of the mark over some seven years. Ignoring the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".ae", the Domain Name is identical to the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name for a website with a name identical to that of the Complainant to provide what appear to be identical services in a manner identical to the way in which the Complainant operates. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its Mark and there is no suggestion that the Respondent has been known by the name "OfferUp". It has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to explain its registration of the Domain Name or to take any other steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds on balance that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant asserts that in light of the immense popularity of its business, with its app being ranked the fourth most downloaded shopping app in the iTunes store, there is a strong likelihood that the Respondent purposely targeted the Complainant's Mark. The Panel notes that OFFERUP is a made-up word and, in the circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, particularly in light of the use to which the Respondent has put the Domain Name. The Complainant's rights in the Mark predate the registration of the Domain Name by several years and the Panel accepts that the obvious inference is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant's rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant for legitimate purposes related to the Complainant's activities.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith. In light of the bad faith provisions of the Policy, it is not necessary to consider whether the Domain Name is being used in bad faith. However, since the Domain Name is being used for a website offering what appear to be identical services to those provided by the Complainant from its website under the Mark, the Panel does also find that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with section 6(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <offerup.ae> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Panelist
Date: July 9, 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/