BMW verliert UDRP-Verfahren um „bmwdiscounts.com.au“

6. Dezember 2011 | Kategorien: Domainrecht, UDRP

Die Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft unterlag bei dem Versuch, den Domainnamen „bmwdiscounts.com.au“ im Wege eines Verfahrens nach der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) übertragen zu bekommen (Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Publishing Australia Pty Ltd, ACN 120 531 982, Mr. Nicholas Crawshay, WIPO Case No. DAU2011-0024).

Der Domaininhaber betreibt eine Webseite, auf der er potentiellen BMW-Käufern Rabattangebote unterbreitet. Auf der Webseite selbst findet sich ein klarstellender Hinweis (sog. Disclaimer), dass die Webseite in keinem Zusammenhang mit BMW selbst steht.

Das Schiedsgericht sah im vorliegenden Fall Rechte oder berechtigte Interessen auf Seiten des Domaininhabers nach § 4(c)(i) der UDRP, wonach sich ein Domaininhaber dann auf Rechte oder berechtigte Interessen an einem Domainnamen berufen kann, wenn er den Domainnamen vor Kenntnis der Streitigkeit im Zusammenhang mit einem gutgläubigen Angebot von Waren oder Dienstleistungen genutzt oder nachweisbare Vorbereitungen für eine solche Nutzung getroffen hat („before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use,the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services“).

Im Zusammenhang mit Webseiten von Händlern wurde bereits sehr früh diskutiert, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen sich diese auf die Regelungen des § 4(c)(i) der UDRP berufen können. Das Schiedsgericht in der richtungsweisenden Oki Data-Entscheidung (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) hat hierfür einen Kriterienkatalog aufgestellt, der vielfach bestätigt wurde:

To be “bona fide,” the offering must meet several requirements. Those include, at the minimum, the following:

– Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue. E.g., World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, WIPO Case No. D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (respondent failed to show demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering).

– Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods. Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, WIPO Case No. D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (use of Nikon-related domain names to sell Nikon and competitive cameras not a legitimate use); Kanao v. J.W. Roberts Co., Case No. 0109 (CPR July 25, 2001) (bait and switch is not legitimate).

– The site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents. E.g., Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weatherman, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0211 (WIPO April 25, 2001) (no bona fide offering where website’s use of Complainant’s logo, and lack of any disclaimer, suggested that website was the official Curious George website); R.T. Quaife Engineering v. Luton, WIPO Case No. D2000-1201 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (no bona fide offering because domain name <quaifeusa.com> improperly suggested that the reflected site was the official U.S. website for Quaife, an English company; moreover, respondent’s deceptive communications with inquiring consumers supported a finding of no legitimate interest); Easy Heat, Inc. v. Shelter Prods., WIPO Case No. D2001-0344 (WIPO June 14, 2001) (no bona fide use when respondent suggested that it was the manufacturer of complainant’s products).

– The Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers, WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (“a single distributor is extremely unlikely to have a legitimate interest in precluding others from using numerous variants on a mark”).

Das Schiedsgericht im Fall „bmwdiscounts.com.au“ sah diese Voraussetzungen als gegeben an:

In the present case, it appears to the Panel that the only offer which is made on the website of the disputed domain name is an offer to assist the potential purchaser to buy a discounted BMW vehicle. The fact that other parts of the Respondent’s business (which are apparently not offered on the website on the disputed domain name) may offer to assist people to buy other brands of cars is in this Panel’s view insufficient to take the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name beyond that stipulated under the second limb of Oki Data. Therefore, this Panel finds that the second limb of Oki Data is satisfied.

The Panel finds that the disclaimers given on the disputed domain name’s website are adequate to inform potential purchasers of the relationship or lack of it between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves in relation to goods which are genuinely marked by the trade mark owner. In the Panel’s opinion, there is no scope for misleading confusion in this situation. The visitor is attracted to the website by a domain name suggesting the offering of “bmwdiscounts” and that is exactly what s/he is offered when at the website. The Panel finds no serious suggestion in the evidence in these Policy proceedings that the Respondent does not in fact offer the service of procuring the Complainant’s motor vehicles on favourable terms. The Panel finds the third limb of Oki Data is satisfied.

There is no evidence of record in these Policy proceedings that the Respondent has attempted to acquire many BMW domain names, thereby preventing the Complainant from registering domain names incorporating its trade mark. Panel accordingly finds the fourth limb of Oki Data is satisfied.

Der Fall ist ein schönes praktisches Beispiel, wie eine nach den Oki Data-Kriterien zulässige Seite aussehen kann.

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)