bmwmotorenshop.nl verkoopt ook producten van andere merken
WIPO Arbitrage 23 september 2013, DNL2013-0026 (Bayerische Motoren Werke AG tegen Quispel Motoren; inzake: bmwmotorenshop.nl) - dossier
Beslissing ingezonden door Hidde Koenraad, Simmons & Simmons.
Domeinnaamrecht. Overdracht. BMW klaagt erover dat Quispel het merk "BMW" in haar domeinnaam gebruikt en dat dit verwarring oplevert en vordert de overdracht van de domeinnaam. Het panel stelt dat de domeinnaam verwarringwekkend gelijk is, nu het merk BMW er volledig in is opgenomen. Dit gebruik is toegestaan, mits er sprake is van een legitiem belang en bona fide gebruik.
Bij Quispel is geen sprake van een legitiem belang en bona fide gebruik. Dit heeft het panel gebaseerd op de zogenaamde Oki Data-criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.). Quispel gebruikt de domeinnaam ook voor de verkoop van producten van andere merken. Tevens is er sprake van gebruik te kwader trouw. Quispel is bekend met de reputatie van BMW en heeft hiervan commercieel gebruik gemaakt. Het panel beveelt de overdracht van bmwmotorenshop.nl.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
(...) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, because the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety. The Domain Name differs from the Trademark only in that the Trademark is followed by two generic or descriptive terms, namely “motoren” (in English “motorcycles”) and “shop”. The addition of such generic or descriptive terms does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Trademark (see, in particular: Seiko EPSON Corporation v. ANEM Computers / ANEM, WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0024, in which case the word “shop” was considered descriptive and generic. See also: Caterpillar Inc. v. H. van Zuylen Materieel, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0073; LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023; Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A., WIPO Case No. DNL2010 0067; and Boels Verhuur B.V. v. Edoco LTD., WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0020). Rather, the additional term “motoren” adds to the confusion as it describes a type of products manufactured and sold by the Complainant under its Trademark (see: Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Buisman-Rosbergen V.O.F., WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0004).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
(...) Only under specific circumstances may a reseller of trademarked goods have a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating the trademark. Pursuant to the panel decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001 0903, the use of a trademark in a domain name by an authorized sales agent of trademarked goods may be considered a bona fide offering of goods, constituting a legitimate interest, if several requirements are met. In later panel decisions, the same has been acknowledged in respect of such use by an (unauthorized) reseller, such as the Respondent (see, amongst others: Maison Louis Latour v. Jos Beeres Wijnkoperij, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0074; and Seiko EPSON Corporation v. ANEM Computers / ANEM, WIPO Case No. DNL2010 0024).
The referenced requirements include, at minimum, the following: (1) the Respondent must actually offer the goods and services at issue; (2) the website must sell only the trademarked goods; (3) the website must accurately and promptly disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (4) the Respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the Trademark.(...) However, it appears from the evidence brought before the Panel that the second criterion has not been met. Although the website appears to offer mainly trademarked goods, the Respondent has admitted – and its website clearly shows – that it also sells a number of other products. In this respect, the Respondent has argued that these other products are all intended for BMW motorcycles, and that the other trademarks mentioned on its website are not (direct) competitors of the Complainant. However, it cannot be denied that on the website linked to the Domain Name the Respondent not only offers goods under the Trademark, but also products of other companies, which are identical and/or similar to the goods for which the Trademark has been registered, therefore qualifying such companies as being in competition with the Complainant and its trademarked goods. As the Complainant has correctly indicated, the offering of such other products, including through the alphabetical overview of all (other) trademarks available on the website (headed “Find Your Favorite Brand”, which appears when a visitor clicks on the link “Brands” in the menu on the home page), makes it easy for Internet users to switch to such other products than identical ones produced by the Complainant. These circumstances indicate that the Respondent was – perhaps not primarily, but not insignificantly also – using the Trademark in the Domain Name to divert the attention of Internet users to competing goods, which implies that the Domain Name is not (only) used for the bona fide offering of goods or services (see: Seiko EPSON Corporation v. ANEM Computers / ANEM, WIPO Case No. DNL2010 0024).
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
(...) Indeed, the Panel notes that the Respondent has indicated to have never acted in bad faith and apparently has, upon receipt of the warning letter(s) on behalf of the Complainant indicating its rights and concerns, made efforts to bring its website in conformity with the (minimum) requirements for use of a Domain Name incorporating the Trademark, in an attempt to meet the criteria mentioned above under Section 6 B. (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001 0903). That said, despite its disclaimer on the website, the fact remains that the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark thereby attracting Internet users to the website that also offers products other than trademarked goods. Therefore, the Panel must conclude that the Domain Name is being used by the Respondent for commercial gain, by intentionally attracting Internet users to its website where the Respondent is also offering goods of competitors of the Complainant, through the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This constitutes evidence of bad faith in terms of the Regulations (article 3.2(d)) (see: Seiko EPSON Corporation v. ANEM Computers / ANEM, WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0024; and Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A., WIPO Case No. DNL2010 0067).
(...)
