About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Representaciones de Materias Primas Industriales Ltda v. Cho Y.G

Case No. D2015-0226

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Representaciones de Materias Primas Industriales Ltda of Santiago, Chile, represented by Alessandri & Compañia Abogados, Chile.

The Respondent is Cho Y.G of Seoul, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <maprin.com> is registered with DROPHUB.COM (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2015. On February 12, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 24, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 16, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 17, 2015.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, which is a Chilean limited liability legal entity, based in Santiago de Chile is also known as MAPRIN Ltda. In Chile, this is an acronym of the first letters of the main and relevant words of its commercial legal name. The Complainant was founded in 1975 and at first was dedicated exclusively to the import and distribution of cosmetic raw materials and supplies. Today it is a leading corporation in the Chilean market dedicated to the imports, exports and distribution of chemical ingredients, cosmetic products, chemical and cosmetic raw materials, and other raw materials for the pharmaceutical and veterinary markets and their relevant containers, packaging machinery and also equipment for such products.

The Complainant has a wide and strong connection with international markets mainly because of its large range of foreign clients and distributors which have become a crucial support in obtaining commercial success in Chile. Recently the Complainant has launched an international campaign in order to consolidate its presence in Latin America as a regional chemical distributor. For example, it has opened a branch in Argentina and is expanding in the future to other countries in Latin America.

The Complainant was the former owner of the disputed domain name <maprin.com>. However, due to an error, the disputed domain name was not renewed. When the Complainant attempted to renew the disputed domain name, it was not possible to do so because by then the current domain name owner i.e. the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant points out that at no time had the Complainant intended to wilfully abandon or not renew the disputed domain name.

The Complainant points out that this is the second dispute regarding the disputed domain name. In 2010, the Complainant also failed to renew the disputed domain name. By a decision in Representaciones De Materias Primas Industriales Ltda. v. Names2000.com, WIPOCase No. D2011-0029 (which is exhibited as Exhibit 4 to the Complaint), the panel ordered the disputed domain name <maprin.com> to be transferred to the Complainant. At Exhibit 5 to the Complaint, there is a print-out of a Google Search for the trademark MAPRIN, showing results which refer to the Complainant as the owner of said mark. At Exhibit 3 to the Complaint there is a copy of the Chilean trademark registration number 871127, for the mark MAPRIN, in the Complainant’s name, which covers the import and export services of chemicals, containers and machinery in Class 35 and the distribution services of chemicals, containers and machinery in Class 39. The Complainant’s mark has an effective date of December 20, 2009.

According to the Complainant, there is no evidence of the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent except to host a website that offers the disputed domain name for sale. However, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that, in addition to the offer for sale, also hosts links regarding maps.

As confirmed by the Registrar, the disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2014.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the above evidence as true and proceeds to determine the Complaint on the basis of the Complainant’s evidence.

5. Parties Contentions

A. Complainant

1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant relies upon evidence of the trademark registration MAPRIN and the similarity of the mark MAPRIN to the domain name in dispute.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant relies upon the fact that there is no evidence that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor is it commonly known by or does it use the mark MAPRIN.

3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support of this, the Complainant relies upon the evidence that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services and has been subject to an offer for sale within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant, also known as MAPRIN Ltda, has trademark rights in Chile in respect of the mark MAPRIN as set out above.

In the Panel’s view, save for the Top Level Domain “.com”, the disputed domain name consists solely of the word “maprin” which is identical to the Complainant’s mark MAPRIN. On this basis, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel accepts the argument of the Complainant that there is no evidence that the Respondent is authorised by the Complainant or otherwise to use the mark MAPRIN.

The Complainant also relies upon the evidence set out at Exhibit 6 to the Complaint which is an extract from a website which appears to be an offer for the sale of the disputed domain name. The fact that the Respondent is apparently seeking to sell the disputed domain name is itself evidence that the Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name <maprin.com> hosts links regarding maps (e.g., “city map”, world map”, “map and directions”). The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) records in paragraph 2.6 that “where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and indeed consistent with recognized sources of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, provided there is no capitalization on trademark value”. If the disputed domain name were, counterfactually, <maps.com> or <mapoftheworld.com>, the Panel may have found its use to host map-related links a bona fide offering of goods or services. However, the disputed domain name is <maprin.com>, which exactly corresponds to the Complainant’s trademark. The suffix “rin” has, to the Panel’s knowledge, no generic meaning either in English, in Spanish or in Korean, and as such the disputed domain name, taken as a whole, has no meaning other than as the Complainant’s mark. In this context the Panel finds that the links do not “genuinely relate to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue” and that the domain name is not used for a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Taking into account also that there is no evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant relies upon paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP to the effect that it can constitute bad faith to register and use a domain name for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant in circumstances when the offer for sale is in respect of a figure greater than the expenses which will be incurred for the transfer of the domain name. The Complainant contends and the Respondent does not contest, that on January 19, 2015, the Complainant offered USD 500.00 for the disputed domain name and received a counter-offer for sale at USD 5,000 which in the Panel’s view constitutes a figure greater than out-of-pocket expenses for the transfer of a domain name.

In all these circumstances and taking into account that there is no evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name in dispute, <maprin.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2015

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/