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

Aveva Group Plc. v. Edward Kim

Case No. D2015-2349

1. The Parties

Complainant is Aveva Group Plc. of Cambridge, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the United Kingdom"), represented by Mills & Reeve LLP, the United Kingdom.

Respondent is Edward Kim of Hunan, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <avevaengage.com> is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 23, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on January 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 2, 2016.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 2016. 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

Complainant is a United Kingdom information technology company providing engineering design, information management solutions and CAD/CAM software for the plant, power and marine industries. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for the AVEVA Mark since at least 2002, and applied for three AVEVA ENGAGE community trademarks on October 9, 2015.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2015 and expires on October 20, 2016.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it filed the AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications in anticipation of launching a new product named "AVEVA Engage." Complainant alleges that these Trademark Applications were made publicly available on the OHIM website as of October 9, 2015, and that it launched its AVEVA Engage product publicly on October 21, 2015, at the AVEVA World Summit in Dubai, via Twitter, a press release, and on its website. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AVEVA Marks because it fully incorporates the AVEVA Mark as its dominant element, and that it is identical to Complainant's applied-for AVEVA ENGAGE Marks.

Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has never been an employee, partner, agent or representative of Complainant, nor has he been licensed, authorized or otherwise granted the right to use the AVEVA or AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, because the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to "www.haroo.co.kr", which is a holding page stating "Thank you for visiting our web site. If you have any inquiries please send us an email. Thank you." The website provides the email address […]@naver.com."

Regarding bad faith registration, Complainant states that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its new AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications in a corresponding domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the AVEVA and AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. Complainant also states that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct, whereby he has registered numerous other domain names just days after other entities filed trademark applications for terms reflected in the registered domain names.

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 Complainant has rights in the AVEVA Marks in view of its trademark registrations. The Panel further finds that Complainant likely has rights in the AVEVA ENGAGE Marks for purposes of the Policy in view of its trademark applications. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AVEVA and AVEVA ENGAGE marks because it incorporates the entirety of the AVEVA Mark with the addition of "engage," which further ties the disputed domain name to Complainant in light of its AVEVA ENGAGE Trademark Applications and new product.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Respondent has never been an employee, partner, agent or representative of Complainant, nor has he been licensed, authorized or otherwise granted the right to use the AVEVA or AVEVA ENGAGE Marks. The Panel further finds that Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to redirect to "www.haroo.co.kr", where he hosts a landing page and has posted the email address "[…]@naver.com" and the domain name <hosting.kr>, which hosts a Chinese website where Internet users can purchase domain names. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide use, such that Complainant has made out a prima facie case for lack of rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to respond.

The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden and satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Regarding bad faith, Complainant's AVEVA Marks have been registered for over 13 years, and Complainant's AVEVA ENGAGE Marks were applied for on October 9, 2015. Although Complainant's AVEVA ENGAGE Marks were not yet registered at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Panel finds it likely that Respondent was aware of and intended to exploit Complainant's imminent launch of its new product when he registered the disputed domain name on October 20, 2015, thereby evidencing bad faith. See General Growth Properties, Inc., Provo Mall LLC v. Steven Rasmussen/Provo Towne Centre Online, WIPO Case No. D2003-0845 (collecting cases in which bad faith was found where the disputed domain name was opportunistically registered prior to the registration of the trademark at issue based on advance knowledge of imminent business event, such as a product launch or merger). See also Sota v. Waldron, WIPO Case No. D2001-0351, finding that a respondent's registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament "strongly indicates an opportunistic registration".

Regarding bad faith use, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect to "www.haroo.co.kr", which advertises for <hosting.kr>, where Internet users can purchase domain names, is in bad faith because it causes a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Marks and attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain based on this confusion. Additionally, Respondent has clearly provided false contact information, as neither the telephone number nor the postal address in the WhoIs record is valid.. False contact information is further evidence of bad faith. See, e.g., BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Texas Internet, WIPO Case No. D2002-0559.

7. Decision

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

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: March 1, 2016

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/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/