Erste Beschwerden nach dem Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) zurückgewiesen – Rechteinhaber scheitern an hoher Beweislast

2. April 2014 | Kategorien: Domainrecht, new gTLD, URS

Im Zusammenhang mit der der Vergabe neuer Top-Level-Domainnamen wurde mit dem Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) ein weiterer Schutzmechanismus eingeführt, der es Markeninhabern ermöglicht, auf schnellem Weg gegen missbräuchliche Domainregistrierung und Domainbenutzung vorzugehen. Im Unterschied zu Verfahren nach der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) kann mit dem Verfahren nur eine Sperrung der unter dem betroffenen Domainnamen abrufbaren Webseite und nicht auch die umgehende Löschung oder Übertragung des Domainnamens erwirkt werden.

Das URS zielt ebenso wie die UDRP auf Fälle offensichtlicher rechtsverletzender Domainregistrierungen ab und die Anspruchsvoraussetzungen entsprechen denen der UDRP weitestgehend. Die Anforderungen an den Vortrag des Beschwerdeführers sind im Gegensatz zur UDRP jedoch höher: dieser muss im URS-Verfahren eindeutige und bestechende Nachweise („clear and convincing evidence“) vorlegen. Genau hier scheinen die Rechteinhaber die größten Probleme zu haben. Von den bislang 25 anhängig gemachten URS-Beschwerden wurden lediglich drei abgelehnt, diese jedoch gleichermaßen mit der Begründung, dass der jeweilige Beschwerdeführer seinen Anspruch nicht hinreichend nachgewiesen habe. Wörtlich heißt es in den Entscheidungen:

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. lawrence fain, NAF Claim No. 1545807 (<branson.guru>)

„Further, the only use of the disputed domain name that has been provided by Complainant is what appears to be a generic, monetized parking page for the registrar, Go Daddy, which does not appear to include any references to Complainant, Richard Branson or the BRANSON trademark.

Taken together, these issues – that is, failure to establish in the record that the relevant trademark is strong plus the absence of any evidence that the domain name is currently being used in a manner that is associated with that trademark – do not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.“

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.; Kyle Ramsey, NAF Claim No. 1547394 (<heartland.holdings>)

„Further, the only use of the disputed domain name that has been provided by Complainant is what appears to be a generic, monetized parking page that includes references to numerous “Related Links” that appear to bear no association with the HEARTLAND trademark (such as “Heartland College,” “Heartland Institute” and “Heartland Poker Tour”) and “Sponsored Listings” that also appear to bear no association with the HEARTLAND trademark (such as those titled “Watch TV Episodes Online” and “Free Printable Coupons”). Although the website also includes other links that are related to the HEARTLAND trademark (such as “Heartland Payment” and perhaps “Heartland Bank”), these are less prominent and appear to be incidental.

Taken together, these issues – that is, failure to establish in the record that the relevant trademark is exclusively or most commonly associated with Complainant plus the absence of any evidence that the domain name is currently being used in a manner that is exclusively or strongly associated with that trademark – do not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.“

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. v. Redwood Capital, NAF Claim No. 1547419 (<heartland.ventures>)

„Further, the only use of the disputed domain name that has been provided by Complainant is what appears to be a generic parking page provided by the Registrar, which includes the text “Featuring the future site for: www.heartland.ventures” along with some technical details and small display advertisements for services unrelated to the HEARTLAND trademark (such as those bearing the text “SSL Security” and “Email Hosting”).

Taken together, these issues – that is, failure to establish in the record that the relevant trademark is exclusively or most commonly associated with Complainant plus the absence of any evidence that the domain name is currently being used in a manner that is associated with that trademark – do not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Examiner is further unconvinced that a registrant’s speculation in domain names is, without more, sufficient under the URS to establish bad faith.“

Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass die Einleitung eines URS-Verfahrens wohlüberlegt werden sollte. Da der Beschwerdeführer mit seinem Vortrag auf 500 Worte beschränkt ist, sind die Möglichkeiten, den Panelist in nicht eindeutigen Fällen zu überzeugen, sehr begrenzt.

Tags: , , , ,

Antworten

Abmahnung Domain | Abmahnung wegen Markenrechtsverletzung | Domainpfändung | Domainrecht | Domains / Domainnamen | eCommerce | Markenanmeldung | Markenrecht | Traffic Protection | Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) | usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP)