• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ville de Paris v. Jeff Walter 
Case No. D2009-1278
1. The Parties
 The Complainant is Ville de Paris of Paris, France, represented by Nataf Fajgenbaum& Associés, France. The Respondent is Jeff Walter of Fremont, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
 The disputed domain name <parvi.org> is registered with GKG.NET, INC.
3. Procedural History
 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the“Center”) on September 25, 2009. On September 28, 2009, the Center transmittedby email to GKG.NET, INC. a request for registrar verification in connection with thedisputed domain name. On September 28, 2009, GKG.NET, INC. transmitted byemail to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listedas the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that theComplaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain NameDispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules forUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notifiedthe Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September30, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Responsewas October 20, 2009. The Response was filed with the Center on October 12, 2009. The Center appointed Andrew Frederick Christie as the sole panelist in this matteron October 26, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel hassubmitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality andIndependence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules,paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
 The Complainant, Ville de Paris (in English, “City of Paris”), is a territorial authorityand the administrative capital city of the French territory.It is a body having legalpersonality, in charge of providing many public services and utilities in the city of Paris. On March 27, 2002 the Complainant obtained French trademark registrationNo. 02 3 156 011 for PARVI for “communications by computer terminals (Internet)”in international class 38, and French trademark registration No. 02 3 156 012 forPARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE (semi-figurative) for “computerized filemanagement; communications by computer terminals (Internet)” in internationalclasses 35 and 38. Since that time, the Complainant has used these trademarks inrelation to the provision of Wi-Fi services and the development of Internet coveragein Paris. The Complainant has also these trademarks in connection with programspromoting Paris as a location for communication and information technologyindustries, and promoting the Complainant’s own open source software.Page
1
of 
7
 
 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 1, 2006. OnSeptember 12, 2006 and again on November 20, 2006, the Complainant wrote tothe Respondent asserting that the Respondent’s registration of the domain nameconstituted an unlawful infringement of its intellectual property rights under theFrench Intellectual Property Code, and requesting that the Respondent cease use of the name PARVI and transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. TheRespondent replied by email on November 21, 2006, stating that he had registeredthe disputed domain name in good faith, without any knowledge of theComplainant’s trademarks, because “parvi” means “small” in Latin and he intendedto use the domain name in respect of a social networking site he was developing.He offered to place a notice and link on his site directing users to the Complainant’swebsite. On November 29, 2006 the Respondent sent a letter to the Complainantrepeating the substance of his email and providing arguments as to why he was notinfringing the French Intellectual Property Code. The Complainant responded on January 17, 2007 and again on November 22, 2007,stating that it “understood the registration of you (sic) domain name <parvi.org>was accomplished with no intention of causing any confusion”, but that theregistration of the domain name nevertheless infringed its trademark rights. TheComplainant proceeded to state that “the Ville de PARIS has however agreed youwould place, as you are offering – on the home page of your website – a link to theVille de PARIS’ website and a notice that would inform users your website is notaffiliated to the Ville de PARIS”. The Complainant’s letter then stated: “According tothe rights from both hereunder mentioned trademarks, you would accept torecognize the Ville de PARIS, a preferential privilege in case of a transfer – of anykind – of your domain name.” The Complainant’s letter concluded by stating that itwould commence legal proceedings if it received no response within 15 daysfollowing receipt of its letter. The Respondent replied to this communication on November 22, 2007, stating thathe had changed plans for use of the disputed domain name, and now proposed touse it for a website dedicated to open source software projects. The Respondentrequested that the Complainant place on its website a disclaimer of association withthe Respondent and a link back to the Respondent’s website. In addition, theRespondent stated “in consideration of your office’s request for preferentialprivilege in the case of any kind of transfer of <parvi.org>, I would require the samepreferential privilege in the case of any kind of transfer of “parvi.net” and/or“parvi.fr”.” The Respondent concluded by requesting immediate notification of whether these terms were acceptable, with a view to completing a contractrecording the agreement. The Complainant responded on July 31, 2009, again asserting that the Respondenthad infringed its rights under the French Code of Intellectual Property, andrequesting that the Respondent immediately undertake to cease use of the namePARVI and “freely transfer” the disputed domain name to it. The Respondent repliedon August 3, 2009, stating that he could not be infringing the Complainant’s rightsbecause the Complainant did not have a trademark registration for PARVI in theUnited States of America, and concluding that he expected to receive no furthercorrespondence on the matter. The Complainant subsequently filed this Complainton September 25, 2009.
5. Parties’ Contentions
Page
2
of 
7
 
A. Complainant
 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar toits PARVI and PARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE trademarks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interestsin the disputed domain name because, before notice of this dispute, there was nouse of the domain name by the Respondent in connection with a
bona fide
offeringof goods or services, and the Respondent was not commonly known by the domainname and had acquired no trademark or service mark rights to “parvi”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputeddomain name in bad faith, because the Respondent shows intention to harm theComplainant by setting up a website whose subject directly competes with theComplainant’s PARVI trademarks and programs under those trademarks. TheRespondent’s claim that he registered the disputed domain name to use it for asmall social networking website because “parvi” is the Latin word for “small” isunconvincing, because the correct word for “small” in Latin is “parvus” not “parvi”. The Respondent decided to use the domain name for a computer-related websiteupon learning of the Complainant’s PARVI programs, when the Complainant firstcommunicated with the Respondent.The fact that the Respondent’s website waslast modified on November 6, 2008 (i.e. almost one year ago) demonstrates that theRespondent never had a
bona fide
intent to use the website, and that theRespondent seeks to disrupt the Complainant’s public interest activities.
B. Respondent
 The Respondent contends that the likelihood of confusion between the disputeddomain name and the Complainant’s PARVI trademark “is non-existent”, and thatthe Complainant’s PARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE trademark “does not apply to thedomain name <parvi.org> on grounds that the parts which make up a trademarkcannot be separated and applied as the [owner] sees fit”. The Respondent contends that he has rights and legitimate interests in the disputeddomain name because, prior to receiving notification from the Complainant, he waspreparing to use the domain name for a small social networking website. TheRespondent decided to move his open source software projects to the disputeddomain name “due to the eventually (sic) domination of social networking sets byMySpace and Facebook”. The Respondent’s main software offering is an opensource patch that alters the open source Linux kernel to support older, andotherwise virtually unsupported, Sun Cobalt series of servers, which constitutes a
bona fide
offering of a good. The Respondent is commonly known by the domainname <parvi.org> within the Sun Cobalt community. The Respondent contends he did not register and is not using the domain name inbad faith, because he did not register it with intent to sell, rent or transfer it forprofit. The Respondent chose “parvi” (which is Latin for “small”) to represent hiswebsite due to a desire for the website to remain small. The Respondent has beeninvolved with Internet and software related activities since 1991, and so it is notsurprising, nor malicious, that he would create a website for these activities. Thewebsite at the disputed domain name has not been modified since November 6,2008, but the software offered at the website has been updated since then. TheRespondent and the Complainant are not competitors.Page
3
of 
7
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...