WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
SDLC SAS v. H.S Kim
Case No. D2007-1003
1. The Parties
The Complainant is SDLC SAS, Noyelles Godault, France, represented by Blandine Poidevin, France.
The Respondent is H.S. Kim, Busan, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 10, 2007. On July 12, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On July 13, 2007, eNom 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 20, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 9, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2007.
The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 2007. 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 disputed domain name was registered on October 21, 2003.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Element I - Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant lists a number of ARTRIUM trademarks, indicating that these are identical to the domain name.
Element II - Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not exploit the website under “www.”, but merely uses it as “a window of sale of the domain name”.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have a trademark right or other right justifying a legitimate interest to exploit the domain name.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not known under the domain name since it is not exploited.
Element III - Registration and Use in Bad Faith by the Respondent
The Complainant contends that the Respondent offers the domain name for a price of 69 euros.
The Complainant submits that Respondent is active in the resale of domain names at prices higher than the registration cost.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is particularly interested in domain names corresponding to registered trademarks.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file a Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although Complainant has not submitted any evidence of its trademark rights, the Panel has found through on line verification that the Complainant is the owner of the ARTRIUM trademarks which are identical to the domain name, as follows:
- the word mark ARTRIUM, registered in Canada, registration no. TMA675424, registered on October 23, 2006;
- the word mark ARTRIUM, registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization, registration no. 747115, registered on October 30, 2000, designated for several countries;
- the word mark ARTRIUM, registered in Switzerland, registration no. 477601, registered on April 28, 2000.
The trademark ARTRIUM is identical to the domain name , as for this purpose the standard URL indication ‘.com’ should not be considered.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the first element of the UDRP is fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant states that it has not licensed its trademarks to the Respondent, nor has it consented to the Respondent’s use of its trademarks as part of the domain names and there is no apparent evidence of any other rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive number of circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain name for EUR 69,-. To substantiate this contention, the Complainant contends that
“ A link towards a site specialized in the sale of domain names is done .”
However, the Complainant did not submit a print out or any other evidence thereof. Furthermore, the Panel did not find such a hyperlink present on the website located at the disputed domain name. Also, the Panel did not find the disputed domain name being offered for sale on the website ““. The Panel is not convinced on balance from the provided material that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant furthermore contends that the activities of the Respondent consist entirely in acquiring domain name registrations and reselling them at higher prices. In this context, the Complainant also contends that the Respondent is particularly interested in domain names corresponding to registered trademarks. However, the Complainant did not furnish any supporting evidence thereof.
In the circumstances the Panel can only find that the Complainant has not in these proceedings succeeded in proving that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Wolter Wefers Bettink
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2007.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy