Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
(i)
circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has acquired the
domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise
transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the
owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that
complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder's docu-
mented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii)
the holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner
of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corres-
ponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern
of such conduct; or
(iii)
the holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv)
by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder's website or other
online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complain-
ant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
holder's website or location or of a product or service on the holder's
website or location.
6.199
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to '… decide a complaint on the
basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy,
these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable'.
6.200
Decisions of WIPO panellists applying its UDRP have held that some geo-
graphical terms can be protected under the UDRP if the complainant has
shown that it has rights in the term and that the term is being used as a trade
mark for goods or services other than those that are described by or related to
the geographical meaning of the term. The fact that a domain is a GI protected
under European law is considered, applying the final report of the Second
WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, to be a matter outside the policy.
6.201
A number of the important Panel decisions dealing with geographical marks
and GIs are digested below.
(b)
Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne v Steven Vickers
208
The Complainant was Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne of
Épernay, France, established by statute under the laws of France to defend,
preserve and promote the interests of all those involved in the production and
marketing of the wines sold under the appellation of origin 'Champagne'. All
producers of champagne in the Champagne district of France are required by
6.202
208
[2011] ETMR 56.
