Inhaber der Marke „PARAJUMPERS“ scheitert im UDRP-Verfahren um den Domainnamen „parajumpers-outlet.com“ wegen unzureichendem Vortrag

19. Juli 2013 | Kategorien: Domainrecht, UDRP

Der Inhaber der Marke „PARAJUMPERS“ ging im Wege des UDRP-Verfahrens gegen den Inhaber des Domainnamens „parajumpers-outlet.com“ vor und scheiterte (PJS International SA v. Carl Johansson, WIPO Case No. D2013-0807), allerdings nicht an der Gegenwehr des Domaininhabers sondern wegen den Unzulänglichkeiten der eigenen Beschwerde. Soweit aus den Entscheidungsgründen ersichtlich, hat sich der Beschwerdeführer nicht einmal die Mühe gemacht, zu argumentieren, dass zwischen der Marke und dem Domainnamen eine verwechslungsfähige Ähnlichkeit im Sinne des § 4(a)(i) der UDRP besteht sondern lediglich auf seine Markenrechte verwiesen. Wenngleich es ständige Rechtsprechung ist, dass ein Domainname, der eine Marke und zusätzliche beschreibende Bestandteile enthält, mit der enthaltenen Marke in aller Regel verwechslungsfähig ähnlich ist, wies das Schiedsgericht die Beschwerde schon an dieser Stelle ab und verwies darauf, dass der Beschwerdeführer nicht hinreichend vorgetragen habe:

The Complainant has established rights in PARAJUMPERS based on its two registered trademarks mentioned above.

However, the Complaint, which is extremely brief, does not discuss the requirement that the disputed domain name be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. In its Complaint, under the heading referring to the first element of the Policy, the Complainant simply invokes its registered trademarks (as well as the exclusive licence which it granted to another party) and moves on.

In a communication to the Complainant dated May 15, 2013 requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment or amended Complaint in light of the fact the Complaint no longer concerns the domain name <parajumpers.eu>, the Center further asked the Complainant to confirm that it had no further comments in relation to the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Thereafter the Complainant incorporated into its amendment to the Complaint some slightly expanded comments in relation to the second and third elements but did not take the opportunity to enhance its submission under the first element.

While it may be said to be obvious that the combination of the trademark plus additional descriptive term would pass the threshold test for confusingly similarity (see paragraphs 1.2 and 1.9 of WIPO Overview 2.0), it is not unreasonable to expect the Complainant to take the trouble to actually state the argument.

In this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s submission does not even qualify as one which merely repeats or paraphrases the UDRP (see section 6.A above); it completely omits any discussion of the merits of a critical component, i.e., identity or confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, which it has to prove.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

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)