Univé - reverse domain name hijacking: Internet - UDRP procedure domain name infringement

Univé is not the owner of the website UNIVE.COM. This is a Pay Per Click ads website for universities. Univé started a procedure with WIPO to claim the name, based on its trademark registration from 1991, the brand awareness and use of the name since 1949.  

In a domain name procedure with WIPO  it must be demonstrated that (1) the domain name corresponds to the brand, (2) the holder does not own rights, and (3) that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Univé not only failed to obtain the domain name and was ultimately convicted of misleading the panel.
Univé states that the domain name has been in her possession since 2000. In 2010 she allegedly forgot to renew the domain name on time, and the current holder of the domain name quickly snatched it away. The holder has no claims on the name Univé.
The defendant shows that Univé’s statements are not true. The domain had been in his possession since 2003 and he offers this ad for education in universities. The Panel therefore rules that Univé had no actual proof for use in bad faith. The allegation that defendant secretly transferred the domain name into her possession in 2010, is wrong. E-mail evidence showed that Univé was actually aware of this. That mistake is unacceptable. The claim is rejected and Univé sentenced to mislead the panel (filing a complaint in bad faith in order to obtain a domain name).
 

internet-online-branding



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?