Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Chekroun Avi

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Koninklijke

Philips Electronics N.V. v. Chekroun Avi

Case No.

D2001-0633

1. The

Parties

The Complainant is Koninklijke

Philips Electronics N.V., Groenewoudsweg 1, 5621 BA Eindhoven, The Netherlands,

represented by Mr. J.J.E.C.G. Vandekerckhove, Postbus 220, 5600 AE, Eindhoven,

The Netherlands ("Complainant").

The Respondent is Chekroun

Avi, an individual with the address p.b. 3124, Shlomi, Shlomi 22832, Israel

("Respondent").

2. The

Domain Name and Registrar

The dispute

concerns the domain name <philips2000.com>.

The Registrar

is Network Solutions, Inc., Herndon, VA, USA.

3. Procedural

History

The WIPO

Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") received the Complainant’s

Complaint in electronic form on May 7, 2001 and in hard copy on May 10, 2001.

On May

14, 2001, the Center requested the Complainant to verify whether the dispute

concerned the domain name <philip2000.com> or <philips2000.com>

as both were mentioned in the Complaint.

On May

15 (e-mail) and May 17, 2001 (hard copy) the Center received the Complainant’s

Amendment, confirming that the domain name in this dispute is <philips2000.com>.

The Center verified that

the Complaint was filed in accordance with the requirements of the ICANN Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy"), the Rules for

the Policy ("the Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for the

Policy ("the Supplemental Rules").

Complainant made the required

payment to the Center.

On May 14, 2001, the Center

transmitted via e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification

in connection with this case. On May 26, 2001, the Registrar transmitted via

e-mail to the Center, the Registrar’s Verification Response, confirming that

(1) Network Solutions is the Registrar of the Domain Name, (2) the Registrant

is Chekroun Avi, (3) Chekroun Avi is the Administrative and Billing Contact,

and WorldNIC Name Host is the Technical Contact, (4) Network solution’s 5 Service

Agreement is in effect, and (5) the Domain Name is in "Active" status.

On May 18, 2001, the Center

transmitted the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative

Proceeding, together with a copy of the Complaint and the Amended Complaint,

to the Respondent via e-mail and via post/courier to the address identified

in the Registrar verification response. The Center advised that (1) the Respondent’s

Response was due by June 6, 2001, (2) in the event of default the Center would

still appoint a Panel to review the facts of the dispute and to decide the case,

(3) the Panel may draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers

appropriate, (4) the Complainant had elected for the matter to be decided by

a single panelist.

The Respondent did not

submit a timely Response. Accordingly, the Center sent to the Respondent a Notification

of Respondent Default on June 8, 2001.

On June 10, 2001, the Center

received an e-mail message from the Respondent, stating some background details

on the registration of the Domain Name and addressed to the Complainant’s authorized

representative. The Center further received, during June 11 –12, a number of

e-mail messages from the Complainant and the Respondent.

On June 14, 2001, in view

of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist the Center invited Mr.

P-E H Petter Rindforth to serve as a panelist.

Having received Mr. Rindforth’s

Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the

Center, on June 15, 2001, transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment

of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Mr. Rindforth

was formally appointed as the sole Panelist. The Projected Decision Date was

June 28, 2001. The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly

constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and Supplemental Rules.

Notwithstanding the fact

that the Respondent failed to comply with the deadline indicated in the Notification

of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, the Panel will take

into consideration the e-mail messages filed by Respondent on June 10 and 12,

2001, and by the Complainant on June 11, 2001, as the Panel considers these

messages important in determining the Respondent’s aim with the registration

of the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Administrative

Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint (including amendments),

the parties e-mail correspondence, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental

Rules. The case before the Panel was conducted in the English language.

4. Factual

Background

The Complainant states

that the trademark PHILIPS has been registered, by its predecessors, in the

Netherlands since 1891 and it is today registered in numerous jurisdictions

worldwide (listed in Annex 3 of the Complaint). The trademark is synonymous

with a wide spectrum of products varying from consumer electronics to domestic

appliances, from security systems to semiconductors.

The Respondent registered

the Domain Name on December 27, 1999 (Annex 1 of the Complaint), and is also

the owner of a number of other trademark related domain names (Annex 5 of the

Complaint), however the Respondent has not provided any specific information

on it’s business activities.

5. Parties’

Contentions

A. Complainant

The PHILIPS brand name

is the Complainant’s most important asset as the Complainant has spent substantially

on supporting the same worldwide.

The Complainant states

that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark PHILIPS, and that

the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Complainant further

states, on the following grounds, that the Domain Name is registered and is

being used in bad faith:

The Complainant has

not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to register the Domain

Name incorporating the trademark PHILIPS.

The Respondent has failed

to provide evidence pertaining to the preparations or use of the domain name

for bona fide offering of goods/services for 17 months between registration

and proceedings sufficed to show lack of legitimate interest, even after receipt

of the Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent on 11 January 2001 (Annex

4 of the Complaint), indicating that the registration of the Domain Name was

based on a domain name speculation without real intent to use.

The Respondent has registered

the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark

in a corresponding domain name, and is engaged in a pattern of such conduct

(Annex 5 of the Complaint, showing a list of other domain names registered

by the Respondent and containing a number of other valuable trademarks).

None of the Respondent’s

domain names resolve to active websites, and it could easily be inferred or

concluded that the Respondent had the intention of transferring the domain

names for valuable consideration.

According to the whois

report, false contact information was provided for the telephone and fax contact

numbers, indicating that the Respondent acted to conceal his/her identity

to ensure that no direct communication with the Complainant is possible.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not

contested the allegations of the Complaint directly, but from the copy of Respondent’s

e-mail of June 6, 2001 to the Complainant’s Representative (sent to the Center

on June 10, 2001), the Respondent states that he/she is "a creator with

a lot of ideas" and that the Domain Name was not registered with the intention

to harm the Complainant.

The Respondent further

states that there is a specific idea behind the Domain Name and the corresponding

web site under construction, with no relationship to the Complainant’s products

or to competitors of the Complainant, however no further information on this

specific idea can be revealed for the moment.

6. Discussion and Findings

According

to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the Respondent’s

Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark

in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain

Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

1. Identical or Confusing

Similarity

The Complainant has claimed

to have trademark registrations for PHILIPS since 1891 and in a great number

of countries and territories. The Panel notes that Complainant has failed to

provide evidence of any kind (translated copies of Certificates of Registrations,

filing and registration dates, registration numbers, etc) related to such registrations.

A mere list of country names cannot be regarded as evidence of trademark registrations.

However, the Panel concludes

that PHILIPS is indeed a well-known trademark and finds no reason to doubt that

the Complainant has at least established common law rights to PHILIPS by extensive

and long-standing use.

The relevant part of the

Domain Name is <philips2000>. As the Domain Name was registered on December

27, 1999 (as shown by Annex 1 of the Complaint), the Panel concludes that the

Domain Name consists of the trademark PHILIPS and the year 2000, the latter

being a neutral addition to the Domain Name with limited or no distinctiveness

(see Nokia Corporation v. IBCC a/k/a Nokiagirls.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102,

also cited by the Complainant).

Accordingly, the Panel

finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark

PHILIPS.

2. No Rights or Legitimate

Interest

The Respondent has no rights

to use the Complainant’s trademark and is not an authorized agent or licensee

of the Complainant’s products or services. The Respondent claimed to have a

(business) idea for the Domain Name, but has refused to provide any business

plan or other information regarding the idea behind the registration. The Panel

therefore concludes that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain

Name.

3. Registered and Used

in Bad Faith

The Respondent claims to

have registered the Domain Name without the intention to harm the interests

of the Complainant.

There are, however, a number

of facts indicating bad faith of the Respondent:

The PHILIPS trademark

is well-known throughout the world and accordingly so also in Israel, the

residence of the Respondent

The Respondent has provided

no evidence of any legitimate commercial, non commercial or fair use of the

Domain Name

The Respondent has refused

to transfer the Domain Name voluntary to the Respondent (as shown by the parties

e-mail correspondence between June 7 and June 11, 2001)

The Respondent is the

owner of a number of domain names, consisting of other’s well-known trademarks,

such as: <swatch2000.com>, <visacard2000.com>, <motorolaworld.com>,

<altavista2000.com>, <amexworld.com>, <bbcworld.com>, <wapnokia.com>,

and <evian2000.com>.

The addition of "2000"

to the Domain Name in this case (and to several of the other domain names

registered by the Respondent) indicates that the Domain Name was registered

in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark PHILIPS in a

corresponding domain name, such as and specifically, a domain name for services

related to the new millennium (2000).

Given the above circumstances,

the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

The Panel further concludes

that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith, as "use" is not limited

to positive actions. The Respondent has passively hold the Domain Name for more

than 17 months, without any evidence of a business plan, prior rights or other

legitimate interests, and has refused to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.

The Respondent has indeed shown a pattern of conduct in registering other’s

well-known trademarks as domain names, therewith preventing the Complainant

and others from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names and presumably

for the only purpose of selling the names to the rightful owners of these trademarks.

The Complainant argued

that the Respondent, by providing false contact information regarding telephone

and fax numbers, has acted to conceal his/her identity. Here, the Panel finds

that the Respondent has obviously been contactable through Respondent’s e-mail

and postal address. The Respondent can therefore not be said to have been actively

preventing direct communication.

The Panel concludes that

the Complainant has succeeded in proving the three elements within paragraph

4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

The Panel concludes (a)

that the Domain Name <philips2000.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

trademark PHILIPS, (b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest

in the Domain Name, and (c) that the Respondent has registered and used the

Domain Name in bad faith.

Therefore,

pursuant to paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders

that the Domain Name <philips2000.com> be transferred to the Complainant

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

P-E Petter

Rindforth

Sole Panelist

Dated: June

20, 2001

More cases by this complainant

• Koninklijke Philips Electronics — D2002-0740 · Terminated
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Wallack, Jonathan J. — D2002-0526 · philipsoutlet.com, philipsoutlet.net, philipsoutlet.org · Transfer · 15 Jul 2002
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics — D2002-0266 · Terminated
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Alan C. Horswill — DTV2002-0004 · buyaphilips.tv, widescreenphilips.tv · Transfer · 30 Jul 2002
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics — D2001-0836 · Terminated
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Manageware — D2001-0796 · myphilipslighting.com, myphillips.com · Complaint denied · 10 Oct 2001