The Complainant is Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California, United States of America, internally represented, United States of America.
The Respondent is Neelgreev Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2015. On January 12, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 13, 2015, the Registrar 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” 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 5, 2015. Two emails were received from the Respondent. The first on January 10, 2015, prior to the Notification of Complaint and the second on January 17, 2015, one day after the Notification of Complaint. Apart from the two communications, no formal Response has been filed by the Respondent to the Center
The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 2015. 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 Complainant is the owner of a number of INTEL trademark registrations in numerous jurisdictions that predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has in many cases used the INTEL trademark in combination with an additional word, such as “intel pro”, “intel core” or “intel inside”.
The Complainant claims common law trademark rights to INTEL GALILEO through use since October 17, 2013.
The Complainant maintains that it filed a trademark application for CURIE on January 2, 2015 in Jamaica and a trademark application for INTEL CURIE on January 6, 2015 in Jamaica. The Complainant has not submitted any evidence to support its claim.
The domain name was registered on January 7, 2015 and the domain name was registered on January 8, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits it owns the trademark INTEL and uses the mark in connection with virtually all of its products and services. The Complainant owns the trademark INTEL GALILEO and uses the mark in connection with development and prototyping boards based on INTEL architecture. The Complainant further submits it owns the trademark INTEL CURIE and uses the mark for an INTEL processor-based hardware platform for wearable applications.
The Complainant filed an application to register the CURIE mark on January 2, 2015 in Jamaica as a Paris Convention priority filing. On January 6, 2015, the Complainant filed an application to register the INTEL CURIE mark in Jamaica as a Paris Convention priority filing. The Complainant publicly announced its new INTEL CURIE product at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas on January 6, 2015, one day before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . On January 7, 2015, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant with the message “In case you are in need of the domain “www.”, please get back to us.”
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name the next day, on January 8, 2015. On that date, the Respondent offered, via email, to sell both domain names to the Complainant for USD 50 000. In a follow up communication, the Respondent stated “I can get at least ten fold of your offer at any domain reseller's website. An average domain name at any reseller costs around USD $3 000. I thought I made a good gesture by offering it directly to Intel itself as the CURIE module has high expectations and huge market in the wearable tech.”
The Respondent has not used the disputed domain names, or prepared to use the disputed domain names, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has directed the disputed domain names to a website belonging to ARM, a direct competitor of the Complainant.
Based on the above, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain names to the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names. Further, the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names. B. Respondent
In its informal response, the Respondent submits that allegations of redirecting the disputed domain names to a competitor are groundless. The disputed domain names were simply parked online and were not misused intentionally, as claimed by the Complainant. There may have been advertisements from the parking webhost server that the Respondent is not responsible for.
The Respondent cannot find any law regarding the combination of trademarks. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there are no trademark registrations for INTELCURIE, INTELGALILEO, INTELCURIE.COM or INTELGALILEO.COM. The Respondent contacted the Complainant and asked if they wanted the domain names. The Complainant offered USD 1 000 and the Respondent rejected the offer. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the distinctive registered trademark INTEL. Each of the disputed domain names and incorporate the Complainant’s INTEL trademark in its entirety. Furthermore, the disputed domain names contain additions of the names “curie” and “galileo”. The mere additions of the names “curie” and “galileo” following the distinctive INTEL trademark does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain names, especially when considering that the INTEL trademark has been extensively used by the Complainant in conjunction with subsequent terms and names, such as “pro”, “core” or “inside”. In these circumstances, it is likely that Internet users would perceive the combination of INTEL and “curie” or “galileo” in the disputed domain names as referring to the Complainant or to a product by the Complainant. Furthermore, it is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such a trademark for purposes of the Policy, despite the addition of common or generic words.
Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of the Panel that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(a) that it has made preparations to use the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(b) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(c) that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Complainant’s trademark registration for INTEL predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names and . The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark in either of the disputed domain names.
There is no evidence in the case indicating that the Respondent has made preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute. Furthermore, there is nothing in the casefile suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights or that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. In addition, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain names were registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registrations to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names were registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names have intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
The Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the Respondent registered the domain name the day after the Complainant announced the INTEL CURIE product at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas on January 6, 2015. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Complainant on January 7, 2015 asking if the Complainant was in need of the domain name . The Respondent then registered the domain name on January 8, 2015 and offered via e-mail to sell both domain names to the Complainant for USD $50 000.
Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain names have been acquired by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name registrations to the owner of a trademark for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain names and have been registered and used in bad faith. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: March 20, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy