new gTLD: Erste erfolgreiche Legal Rights Objections (LROs) veröffentlicht

Die Liste der erfolglosen Legal Rights Objections (LRO)  wird immer länger. Neben den bislang veröffentlichten Entscheidungen wurden zwischenzeitlich insgesamt 21 weitere Entscheidungen veröffentlicht, die sämtlich zu Gunsten des Widerspruchsgegners entschieden wurden:

• Merck & Co, Inc. v. Merck KGaA, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0068 (EMERCK)
• Merck & Co, Inc. v. Merck KGaA, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0069 (MERCK)
• Latin American Telecom, LLC v. Charleston Road Registry Inc., WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0055 (TUBE)
• Starbucks (HK) Limited v. One.com A/S, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0028 (NOW)
• Defender Security Company v. Top Level Domain Holdings Limited, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0037 (HOME)
• I-REGISTRY Ltd v. John Corner LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0015 (VIP)
• Motorola Trademark Holdings LLC v. United TLD Holdco Ltd, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0054 (MOTO)
• Starbucks (HK) Limited v. XYZ.com LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0029 (NOW)
• Starbucks (HK) Limited v. Global Top Level ApS, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0026 (NOW)
• United States Postal Service v. WhitePages TLD LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0048 (MAIL)
• United States Postal Service v. Victor Dale, LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0047 (MAIL)
• Scripps Networks, LLC v. Charleston Road Registry Inc., WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0019 (DIY)
• Defender Security Company v. Dot Home LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0033 (HOME)
• Starbucks (HK) Limited v. Grand Turn LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0025 (NOW)
• Coach, Inc. v. Koko Island, LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0002 (COACH)
• DotMusic Limited v. dot Music Limited, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0059 (MUSIC)
• DotMusic Limited v. Entertainment Names Inc., WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0061 (MUSIC)
• DotMusic Limited v. Victor Cross, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0062 (MUSIC)
• Academy, LTD., d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors v. Half Oaks, LLC, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0003 (ACADEMY)
• Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Afilias Limited, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0004 (BLUE)
• Biotechnology Industry Organization v. Starting Dot, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0056 (BIO)

Interessant von diesen Entscheidungen sind vor allem die MERCK und EMERCK-Entscheidungen. Bei der Merck & Co, Inc. handelt es sich um einen früheren Teil der Merck KGaA, der als Folge des 2. Weltkriegs abgespalten wurde. Das Panel stellte zur Frage einer möglichen Verwechslungsgefahr fest:

It is possible that Applicant’s use of the Disputed gTLD String could create a likelihood of confusion with Objector’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed gTLD String. However, such possible confusion would not be greater than any that may already exist as a result of two similar companies using a similar trademark as the result of a common history. Applicant has made it clear that it will take all necessary measures, including geo-targeting, to avoid that Internet users in the territories in which Objector has trademark rights, will be able to visit websites that use the Disputed gTLD String. Should Applicant use the Disputed gTLD String in a way that infringes the rights of Objector, Objector shall be free to take the appropriate legal measures.

Die erste erfolgreiche Objection war das Verfahren um die new gTLD DELMONTE (Del Monte Corporation v. Del Monte International GmbH, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0001), in welchem ein Markeninhaber gegen einen seiner Lizenznehmer vorging. Wenig überraschend konnte der Lizenzgeber in dem Verfahren obsiegen:

The Panel majority considers that the applied-for gTLD string, being identical to the Objector’s well-known mark, and given the nature of the Respondent’s proposed use, will create a likelihood of confusion between the gTLD and the Objector’s mark. The Panel must conclude, however, that the gTLD creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion in order to sustain the Objection. Several LRO panels have considered that a respondent’s behaviour, short of bad faith, may be relevant to this determination.

[…]

The Panel majority finds that there is something untoward about the Respondent’s behaviour in this case. As previously indicated, the Respondent arguably violated the terms of its Licence Agreements with
the Objector by acquiring trade mark registrations that under the circumstances might have been acquired to bolster the Respondent’s eventual gTLD application. In light of all the attendant circumstances, and
considering such untoward behaviour, the Panel majority believes the gTLD creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the gTLD and the Objector’s mark.

Auch im Verfahren um die TLD DIRECT (The DirecTV Group Inc. v. Dish DBS Corporation, WIPO Case No. LRO2013-0005) konnte der Objector obsiegen. Hier versuchte tatsächlich ein direkter Konkurrent des Objectors (beide bieten als direkte Konkurrenten auf dem US-amerikanischen Markt Satelliten-TV an), sich den TLD-String zu sichern, der dem übereinstimmenden Bestandteil der Serienmarke des Objectors entspricht, um diesen beschreibend zu benutzen. Soweit ersichtlich handelt es sich bei diesem Verfahren um das bislang einzige, bei dem man von Top-Level-Domain-Grabbing sprechen könnte, dem originären Anwendungsbereich des Legal Rights Objection Verfahrens.

Aktueller Zwischenstand: 
Objection Rejected: 46
Ojection Upheld: 2
Terminated: 5
Pending: 16