Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Domain Name Dispute [WIPO AMC Decision] - Patek Philippe S.a. v. Think Secure Labs, Raymond Pestalozzi [2010]

Domain Name Dispute [WIPO AMC Decision] - Patek Philippe S.a. v. Think Secure Labs, Raymond Pestalozzi [2010]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 149|Likes:
Published by MaxDolotov

More info:

Published by: MaxDolotov on Apr 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONPatek Philippe S.A. v. Thinksecure Labs, Raymond PestalozziCase No. D2010-01691.The Parties
The Complainant is Patek Philippe S.A. of Switzerland, represented by Samantha Jelinof Switzerland.The Respondent is Thinksecure Labs, Raymond Pestalozzi of United States of America.
2.The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <patekwatches.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered withGKG.NET, INC.
3.Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2010. On February 5, 2010, the Center transmitted byemail to GKG.NET, INC a request for registrar verification in connection with thedisputed domain name. On February 5, 2010, GKG.NET, INC transmitted by email tothe Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as theregistrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendmentto the Complaint on February 11, 2010. The Center verified that the Complainttogether with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of theUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ”Policy” or “UDRP”), theRules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and theWIPO 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 theRespondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 12, 2010.In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March
 page 1
4, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Centenotified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2010.The Center appointed Antony Gold as the sole panelist in this matter on March10, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted theStatement 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 Domain Name was registered on August 25, 2005. It does not resolve to an activewebsite. On September 4, 2009, the Complainant’s representatives wrote to theRespondent to put it on notice of the Complainant’s rights and to request the transfer of the Domain Name (annex 12a to the Complaint). The Complainant’s representativesalso state that they sent an email to the Respondent on January 25, 2010. A copy of theemail has not been appended to the Complaint but an email from the registrar statingthat the email has been sent is appended (annex 13a to the Complaint). No responses tothe letter or the email have been received by the Complainant or its representatives.
5.Parties’ ContentionsA.Complainant
As evidence of its rights in a trade mark or service mark to which the Domain Name isidentical or confusingly similar, the Complainant states that it has used the namePATEK for many years. It has produced a timeline which indicates that Patek, Czapek & Co was founded in 1839 and it produced its first watch in 1844.The Complainant also relies on its International trade mark registration for PATEK which has been registered in connection with classes 9 (all apparatus and articles for measuring time) and 14 (all apparatus and articles for measuring time, timepieces and jewellery). The International registration was based on a Swiss trade mark which wasregistered on March 22, 1958. The International registration has been designated in18 countries. The Complainant has produced evidence to show that it manufacturesand sells a wide range of watches and accessories to an international market.The Complainant asserts that it says that the Respondent has no rights and legitimateinterests in the Domain Name as:(a)the Respondent is unconnected with the Complainant’s business;(b)the Respondent has not registered a trade mark for PATEK in the United States oAmerica where it is based;(c)the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name;and(d)the Respondent has no commercial interest in the Domain Name and registered itto block the Complainant from registering it.The Complainant also asserts that the Domain Name was registered and is being usedin bad faith as:
 page 2
(i)the Respondent registered the Domain Name without regard to the Complainant’srights in the name PATEK;(ii)the Respondent agreed to the terms and conditions of the registration agreementwhich refers to the UDRP and the Respondent would have known that, byregistering a well-known trade mark, it was risking the commencement of legal proceedings; and(iii)the Respondent must be aware of his infringing activities as it has receivedcorrespondence from the Complainant’s representatives (this being a letter datedSeptember 4, 2009) regarding the Domain Name.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6.Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 14 of the Rules provides, amongst other matters, that if a party does notcomply with a provision of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it thinksfit.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
 Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that theDomain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark inwhich the Complainant has rights.From the screen shots of the Complainant’s website annexed to the Complaint, it can beseen that the Complainant has been manufacturing watches for about 165 years. Thescreen shots indicate that the Complainant appears to use the trade name Patek Philipperather than Patek alone. Although the evidence adduced by the Complainant couldhave been considerably more detailed in this respect, the Panel is satisfied that theComplainant has rights in the PATEK mark. Whilst its trading style appears to bePatek Philippe, the Complainant has an International registration for PATEK dating back to 1958 and has a website at “www.patek.com”. Therefore, the Complainant hasdemonstrated its trademark rights in PATEK and this requirement of the UDRP issatisfied.The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to theComplainant’s trade mark for PATEK as the word “watches” is merely descriptive of the principal form of goods sold by the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to
 paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that theRespondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimateinterests in respect of the Domain Name. In particular, it is accepted that, in theabsence of any evidence to the contrary, the Respondent is not known as PATEK andhas not registered a trade mark in the United States of America (where it is based) for PATEK (annex 9 to the Complaint). The Respondent is also not cited in the list of the
 page 3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->