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

BIOTHERM v. Wang Hui Huang

Case No. DTM2014-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BIOTHERM of Monaco, represented by Dreyfus & associés of France.

The Respondent is Wang Hui Huang of Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registry

The disputed domain name <biotherm.tm> is registered with NIC.TM (the "Registry").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 30, 2014. On May 30, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 30 and June 6, 2014, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On June 11, 2014, the Center notified the Complainant of deficiencies in its Complaint. The Complainant submitted an amended Complaint by email on June 13, 2014.

The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for Domain Names registered with NIC.TM (the "Policy"), the Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution for .TM Names (the "Rules of Procedure"), and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Supplemental Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for .TM Names (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 19, 2014. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 9, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 10, 2014.

The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on August 1, 2014. 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 of Procedure, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Based on the uncontested statements made in the Complaint, the Complainant is a French brand founded in 1952 specialized in the conception and manufacture of skincare products. It has been present on the Chinese market since 2003. It owns Chinese Trademark No. 76631 for BIOTHERM, registered on December 2, 1988. It also provided evidence of its International Trademark Registration No. 198936 of March 4, 1957 for BIOTHERM. The Complainant also registered domain names incorporating the BIOTHERM mark, including <biotherm.com> registered on February 14, 1996 and <biotherm.com.cn>, registered on December 16, 2002.

The disputed domain name <biotherm.tm> was registered by the Respondent on December 27, 2013. The disputed domain name does not appear to have ever been used in association with an active website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that all three required elements under the Policy have been satisfied in this matter.

Regarding the first element, the Complainant refers to its trademark registrations for BIOTHERM. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <biotherm.tm> incorporates the BIOTHERM mark in its entirety, and is virtually identical to its mark except for the country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) ".tm" which is not to be considered for purposes of the Policy. Thus the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks.

Under the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the dispute domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly-known by the Complainant's mark, nor is the Respondent authorized by the Complainant to use its mark in domain names. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has not made or demonstrated any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

In connection with the third element, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name as the BIOTHERM mark is well-known around the world. The Complainant submits that the reproduction of its trademark in its entirety in the disputed domain name demonstrates the Respondent's awareness of the Complainant. The Complainant further asserts that although the disputed domain name is inactive, the Respondent's bad faith use of the disputed domain name is to be inferred from the circumstances of the Respondent's behavior.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

This Complaint has been brought under the Policy, which closely resembles the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Accordingly, the principles developed by panels under the UDRP are relevant and instructive in many respects.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors usually considered in trademark infringement. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; BWT Brands, Inc and British American Tobacco (Brands), Inc v. NABR, WIPO Case No. D2001-1480; and Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-1698.

The Complainant has clearly established its rights in the BIOTHERM mark by virtue of its trademark registrations duly submitted with its Complaint. These trademark registrations significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name.

It is well established that a TLD suffix, in this instance the ccTLD suffix ".tm", is generally held to be irrelevant for the purposes of determining identity or confusing similarity under the Policy. See Samsung Networks Inc. v. Stan Samsung Hui, WIPO Case No. DTM2009-0001; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

Discounting the ccTLD suffix, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <biotherm.tm> incorporates and exactly matches the Complainant's BIOTHERM mark in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the complainant demonstrate that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, UDRP panels have recognized that this may require the complainant to prove a negative. Therefore, UDRP panels have found that for purposes of this element, the complainant is instead required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which would then shift the burden of production to the respondent. See paragraph 2.1, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"). See also Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.

In the present matter, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its BIOTHERM mark in the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record that would permit the Panel to consider that the Respondent has used or is undertaking preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

In the absence of any response from the Respondent, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Pursuant to the Policy, the Complainant needs to establish that the Respondent either registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith to establish this element. For the following reasons, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established both that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant's BIOTHERM mark is widely known around the world, including in China where the Respondent is apparently located. The registration and use of the Complainant's marks in China significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name, which reproduces the mark in its entirety. It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent was aware of and intentionally registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant's mark.

From the evidence available to the Panel, it does not appear that the disputed domain name has ever been used in connection with an active website. The Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent's bad faith. Although in some cases passive holding of a domain name may provide evidence of bad faith activity, it is necessary in every case to evaluate the issue in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Some of these key issues include whether: 1) the Complainant's mark has a strong reputation and is widely known, 2) there is any evidence of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with a contemplated good-faith activity, 3) the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity or provided false contact details, and 4) whether it is impossible to conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent which would not infringe the Complainant's rights. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

In this case, the Complainant has convinced the Panel that circumstances exist to satisfy each of these key passive holding factors. The Panel is convinced of the fame of the Complainant's mark, there is no demonstrable evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a possible good-faith activity, and it is impossible for the Panel to conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. Furthermore, the physical contact and email information provided by the Respondent in its WhoIs records is incorrect, as evidenced by email and delivery records.

The Panel therefore concludes, on the totality of the circumstances, that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, satisfying the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(h) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules of Procedure, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <biotherm.tm> be transferred to the Complainant.

Torsten Bettinger
Sole Panelist
Date: August 14, 2014

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/