23. 2003-09-30
Sökande/Complainant IT Butikken A/S, Danmark Motpart/Respondent
Shoppingsajterna Svenska AB, 556577-2547, Önsvala Gård, 245 93 Staffanstorp
Saken/The Matter
Alternativt tvistlösningsförfarande för domännamnet/Alternative Dispute Resolution concerning the domain name <itbutikken.se>
---
Stiftelsen för InternetInfrastruktur meddelar följande/issues the following Beslut/Decision
The Domain Name <itbutikken.se” is transferred to
Complainant/Domännamnet <itbutikken.se> överförs till sökanden (ITbutikken A/S).
---
Postadress Besöksadress Telefon Telefax Hemsida
II-Stiftelsen Box 7399
103 91 STOCKHOLM
Sehlstedtsgatan 9 08-662 54 40
Bakgrund och Beslut rörande handläggningsspråk/Background and Decision concerning the Language of the Proceeding.
Språk/Language
22 § i Förfarandereglerna för ATF föreskriver att en ansökan om ett alternativt tvistlösningsförfarande får göras på det språk som ansökan om registrering av domännamnet gjorts. Om ansökningsspråket för registreringen av
domännamnet är engelska skall handläggningsspråket i tvistlösningsförfarandet också vara engelska.
I detta ärende har Stiftelsen upplyst att ansökan om registrering av
domännamnet har gjorts på engelska. Ansökan om tvistlösningsförfarande är också gjord på engelska. Tvistlösaren beslutar därför att detta beslut skall avfattas på engelska.
Background/Bakgrund
An application, without date, relating to the domain name <itbutikken.se> was received by Stiftelsen on August 7, 2003 and communicated to Respondent with an indication that any Response should be submitted by September 26, 2003. No Response was, however, received.
On September 29, 2003, Henry Olsson was appointed as Panelist in this matter. The Projected Decision Date was October 30, 2003.
Claims/Yrkanden
In its application Complainant has only indicated: ”The applicant claims that the domain name itbutikken.se shall be deregistered/transferred to the applicant” without mentioning which of the options Complainant prefers.
Parties´ Contentions/Parterna har anfört
Complainant/Sökanden
The essential part of Complainant´s contentions is included in a latter dated August 5, 2003.
In that letter Complainant first states that Itbutikken A/S is a Danish joint-stock company existing since 1999. It is doing business under that name in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom. In Sweden it has been active since March 27, 2000, and has both an Organization Number and a VAT Number, both under the name ”Itbutikken”.
In addition, Complainant contends that it is owner of the top level domain names <itbutikken.dk>, <itbutikken.nu>, itbutikken.no>, itbutikken.de>, <itbutikken.co.uk> and <itbutikken.com>.
Complainant´s runs e-business activities, selling computer parts over the Internet. According to Complainant, Respondent is doing the same kind of business in Sweden under the name ”datorbutiken.com” but also, as from about 2001, in Norway and Denmark under the name ”databutikken.com.”
”butiken” in Sweden and that it would be ”crazy” to use the Danish spelling in Sweden.
Complainant also refers to a previous case in Denmark where Respondent had been involved and which concerned ”itbutiken.dk”; that case was, however, dropped.
Also, according to Complianant, Respondent had ”made a sub name
registration to there organisation no, on Itbutikken Svenska.” concerning which registration Complainant has taken action.
Complainant stresses that it has done business in the Swedish market for three years using <itbutikken.nu> and has ”lined up to” <itbutikken.se> through ”www.speednames.com” when the name there was free.
Complainant furthermore stresses that it has been marketing ”itbutikken” in Sweden during three years but that Respondent has never, to Complainant´s knowledge, used the domain name at issue neither in Sweden nor in any other country (with the exception of the case in Denmark as mentioned above). According to Complainant, it sees the registration of the domain name at issue only as a way of keeping a competitor out from the Swedish market and there would be no sense for a Swedish company to bring a Danish name to the
Swedish market and furthermore ”there is also no sense that ”datorbutiken” will change there competitor name.” Complainant concludes: ”the only reasonable reason to our opponent registration is: 1) redeligation to ”datorbutiken.com” 2) keeping a competitor out. But that is not allowed according to several
international court decisions”. Tvistlösarens skäl/ Panel´s Findings
General/Allmänt
Article 18 of the General Provisions concerning the Registration of Domain Names under the Top Level Domain .se prescribes that domain names may be cancelled or transferred to a person who has applied for a Dispute Resolution Proceeding if
a) the domain name is idental or confusingly similar to a trademark, a trade name, a family name or artist name (where the name does not relate to a person diseased since a long time), or the title of another person´s protected literary or artistic work which designations etc have a legal title in Sweden and to which the Compliant can show a right,
b) the holder of the domain name does not have a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and
c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. (”Punkt 18 c) i Allmänna villkor för registrering av domännamn under toppdomänen .se föreskriver att domännamn får avregistreras eller överföras till den som har begärt tvistlösningsförfarandet om
a) domännamnet är identiskt eller förväxlingsbart med ett varukännetecken, näringskännetecken, släktnamn eller konstnärsnamn (om inte namnet syftar på någon sedan länge avliden), eller också med titel på annans skyddade litterära eller konstnärliga verk vilka kännetecken etc. har rättsgrund i Sverige och till vilken sökanden kan visa rätt,
b) innehavaren av domännamnet inte har någon rätt till eller något berättigat intresse i domännamnet, och
c) domännamnet har registrerats eller använts i ond tro.
Items 18 d) and e) contain provisions about such circumstances that may, in particular, indicate a right or a legitimate interest and which may indicate bad faith, respectively.
The following part of this Decision contains the findings of the Panel relating to each of those elements, a basis for the decision in this case.
The Complaint with its Annex has been communicated to the Respondent who has, however, not submitted any Response. There is consquently no indication of Respondent´s reaction to the claims of the Complainant. In the absence of any statement or allegations on behalf of Respondent, the Panel thus has to base its Decision on the contents of the Complaint and the claims of
Complainant together with the evidence availble to support those contentions.
Identity or Confusing Similarity/Identitet eller förväxlingsbarhet
In this respect, Complainant claims that it is, since 1999, a Danish company trading under the name ”ITbutikken A/S” and has been trading under the name ”ITbutikken”in, inter alia, Sweden since March 2000 and there using Swedish Organization and VAT Numbers.
Complainant has not invoked any specific rights based on any trademark or other registrations in Sweden nor any basis for its claim in this case other than the use of the indication ”ITbutikken” in connection with its business in Sweden. The Panel therefore has to consider whether this use of that
denomination in business in Sweden is enough to meet the requirements under the General Conditions/”Allmänna villkor” to the effect that there must exist a legal title in Sweden and that Complainant can show a right in it.
The Swedish Trade Names Act (1974:156) contains provision on the protection of trade names, and prescribes in its Article 2 that a right in a trade name may be established through registration or through establishment on the market and that establishment of a trade name on the market (”inarbetning”) is present when (quoted in Swedish) ”det är känt som beteckning för innehavarens verksamhet inom en betydande del av den krets till vilken verksamheten riktar sig (”known as an indication for the activities of the holder within a significant part of the circle to which those activities are directed.”
Also, under the Swedish Trademark Act (1960:644) a trademark may be protected if it is established on the market (Article 2, containing also a similar definition of ”establishment on the market”).
In the absence of any rights based on registration, the Panel has to consider whether the use made of the denomination ”ITbutikken” is such that that denomination can be considered to have been established on the Swedish market either as a trade name or a trademark or possibly any other legal title. According to Complainant´s allegations, which have not been contested by Respondent, it has been doing business under that demonation in Denmark since 1999 and in Sweden since March 2000. The Panel furthermore notes that
Complainant has Swedish Organization and VAT Numbers and that it, according to Complainant, is doing business in the specialised field of
computer equipment in a number of countries and also is the holder of several top-level domain names which include the notion ”itbutikken”.
The Panel considers that those circumstances are sufficient for a finding to the effect that the Complainant´s denomination ”ITbutikken” is to be considered as established on the relevant market in Sweden. This denomination would
therefore, for the purposes of this case, be considered as enjoying protection in Sweden under the Trade Names Act and the Trademarks Act with Complainant as owner of those rights.
The Panel also considers that the domain name at issue is identical with the trade name/trademark in which Complainant has a title in Sweden.
Right or Legitimate Interests/Rätt eller berättigat intresse.
The only circumstances available in this respect in this case are the allegations by Complainant to the effect that Respondent has never used the name in Sweden or in any other country and that it sees the registration of the domain name at issue as a way for ”datorbutiken” (Respondent´s business name) to keep a competitor out of the market; also there would be no reason for it to change its name or the name of a competitor.
Respondent has not submitted any Response and thus has not replied to any of those contentions by Complainant.
The Panel finds some merit in what Complainant has alleged in this respect. The Panel thus concludes that in fact Respondent has not actually used the domain name at issue in business after its registration. The Panel furthermore can not imagine any reason for Respondent - trading in the same area as Complainant - to register the domain name <itbutikken.se> with a Danish spelling under the Swedish top-level domain .se other than a wish to block Complainant from conducting business in Sweden under the Swedish top-level domain name.
The circumstances thus present in this case lead the Panel to the conclusion that the owner of the domain name at issue has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Registration and/or use in bad faith/Registrering och/eller bruk i ond tro
Also in this respect, the only material available for the Panel as a basis for the conclusions are the allegations by Complainant which have not been
contradicted by Respondent who has, as mentioned, not submitted any Response.
The Panel first draws the conclusion that it is very unlikely that Respondent did not know about Complainant´s business at the time of the registration of the domain name under the Swedish top-level domain .se. The Panel also notes once more that the domain name registered under that top-level domain uses Danish spelling and that Complainant and Respondent are both in the same business of selling computer equipment over the Internet and, furthermore, that Respondent does not seem to have used the domain name since its registration.
Against this background and in the absence of any statement or allegations by Respondent concerning the reasons for its registration of the domain name at issue, the Panel can not avoid coming to the conclusion that the domain name at issue has actually been registered and also used in bad faith in the way indicated in items 18, c) and e) of the General Conditions (”allmänna villkoren”)
Conclusions/Slutsatser
In accordance with what has been said above the Panel concludes that the domain name at issue is identical to the trade name and the trade mark
”ITbutikken” or ”itbutikken” in which Complainant has rights in Sweden, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue and that that domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant´s claim in the case shall consequently be approved.
Complainant has not clearly indicated which legal effect it prefers, that is, whether the domain name should be cancelled or transferred to the
Complainant. In view of what is known about the activities of Complainant and its other domain name registrations, the Panel would interpret Complainant´s priority to be a transfer of the domain name at issue to Complainant.
On behalf of/ På Stiftelsen för InternetInfrastrukturs vägnar
