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

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Case No. DSE2018-0039

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Zipcar, Inc., United States of America, represented by Bryn Aarflot AS, Norway.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is R. H. I., KIRAKUNA AS, Norway.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the Domain Name <zipcar.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The Petitioner elects to have the dispute decided by one arbitrator and to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Centerˮ) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on July 9, 2018. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on August 9, 2018.

The Center appointed Jon Dal as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on August 16, 2018. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder did not submit any response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

A1. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner owns Swedish trademark registration no. 412074 for the word mark ZIPCAR in class 39 and European Union Trade Mark reg. no. 003139375 for the word mark ZIPCAR in class 9 and 42. Both registrations are validly registered and hence legally binding in Sweden, and were similarly registered and valid at the time of the Domain Name registration. The trademark is incorporated in the Domain Name in its entirety and without any distinguishing elements, and hence the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Petitioner has valid rights.

A2. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Petitioner is a subsidiary of Avis Budget Group, Inc., which is a leading global provider of mobility solutions, both through its Avis and Budget brands, which have more than 11,000 rental locations in approximately 180 countries around the world, and through its Zipcar brand, which is the world’s leading car sharing network, with more than one million members. Avis Budget Group operates most of its car rental offices in North America, Europe and Australasia directly, and operates primarily through licensees in other parts of the world. The Petitioner owns and operates the domain name <zipcar.com>, which is used as a portal for the Petitioner’s car sharing network, and has exclusively and extensively used and promoted its brand to the extent that Zipcar, Inc. has become the world’s leading car sharing network, which shows that the mark has obtained a strong reputation.

The Petitioner owns a number of trademarks for its ZIPCAR mark throughout the world.

The Domain Name is used for what appears as false third-party advertisements apparently completely
non-related to the Domain Holder or its business. Given the Petitioner’s position as the world’s leading car sharing network, and being part of the well-known Avis Budget Group, as well as the Petitioner’s extensive and exclusive use of the ZIPCAR mark which has resulted in a strong reputation, it is unlikely that the Domain Holder was not aware of the Petitioner’s earlier rights in the name. A simple Internet search or a search in the Swedish, Norwegian or European Union (EU) trademark databases would have been sufficient for the Domain Holder to establish that the Petitioner had rights in the “Zipcar” name.

The use of the Domain Name for advertisements which are non-related to the Domain Holder’s business activities shows that the Domain Name was registered and is being used for the purpose of profit. The Petitioner thus holds that the registration and the use of <zipcar.se> are in bad faith.

A3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

The Domain Holder is a Norwegian company, which offers personalized IT services to companies. According to the Domain Holder’s website they help companies with personal consultancy with regard to infrastructure, licenses and hardware. The Domain Holder’s website has no indication of the Domain Holder’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, of “Zipcar” in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Holder is not known as “Zipcar” and the Petitioner has not provided its permission or authorization to any such use of the ZIPCAR mark in any way. Accordingly, the Domain Holder has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

A4. Evidence

The Petitioner invokes as evidence, i.a., printouts for Swedish and EU trademark registrations for ZIPCAR, printouts from the Domain Holder’s website and printouts of advertisements from “www.zipcar.se”.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder did not submit any response.

6. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may be transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if the following three conditions are fulfilled:

A. The domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and

B. The domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

C. The domain holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

All three conditions must be met in order for the party requesting dispute resolution to succeed with a claim for transfer of the domain name.

A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of a Swedish trademark registration for ZIPCAR (word mark) and an EU trademark registration for ZIPCAR (word mark). The Domain Name is in all material aspects identical to the Petitioner’s trademarks.

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in the Domain Name.

7. Decision

The Domain Name <zipcar.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Jon Dal
Date: August 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/