De domeinnaam Timkuik.org dient te worden overgedragen

B9 11914. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, beslssing geschillenbeslechter (Willem Leppink) van 13 november 2012, Tim Kuik tegen H.C. Pol. (Timkuik.org).

“The right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name that is identical to the complainant’s trademark.”

Domeinnamen. De domeinnaam timkuik.org dient te worden overgedragen aan eiser Tim Kuik, directuer van de Stichting BREIN en houder van het Benelux-woordmerk 'Tim Kuik'. Verweerder gebruikt de domeinnaam voor een website die onder meer linkt naar fuck.timkuik.org: ”The Respondent uses the disputed domain name for different projects, including a platform for victims of the Complainant and BREIN. The Respondent considers himself a victim of BREIN as BREIN is stalking the Respondent and disclosing to the public full personal details of the Respondent. The Respondent is experiencing social problems as a result of this and has serious sleeping disorders.”

De geschillenbeslechter oordeelt echter dat de litigieuze domeinnaam identiek is aan het woordmerk Tim Kuik en dat de domeinnaam te kwader trouw is geregistreerd. Een beroep op de vrijheid van meningsuiting kan daar niet aan afdoen:

A key issue is therefore whether the disputed domain name is used for a genuine criticism site, and, if so, whether in the circumstances of the present case such a site can generate rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. (…)

The Panel notes that the record of the present case presents a somewhat unusual picture. The sub domain <fuck.timkuik.org> was used to provide access to a copy of the website of The Pirate Bay, whereas the disputed domain name resolved to a website which, at the date of notification of the Complaint, did not express any criticism in relation to the Complainant and/or BREIN, except perhaps, indirectly, for the link to the sub domain. However that may be, the Panel acknowledges the possibility that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of creating such sub domain, which in turn was used for a copy of The Pirate Bay. In this regard, the Panel notes that the legitimacy of the website of The Pirate Bay is clearly a topic on which the Complainant and the Respondent strongly disagree.

(…) It has been accepted by some UDRP panelists, with which this Panel agrees, that the right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name that is identical to the complainant’s trademark, where a respondent is using the trademark alone (i.e., without any clarifying term(s)) as the domain name.This Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of the Policy.

(…) In doing so, the Respondent would also have been aware that the disputed domain name would be likely to make a misrepresentation to the typical Internet user that any associated website was owned and operated by the Complainant and that the disputed domain name would “catch by surprise” visitors intending to reach the Complainant’s website. It is also clear to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the copy of The Pirate Bay website. In the Panel’s view, the consequence is that the Respondent’s actions are tainted. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Lees de beslissing hier.