Another firm misunderstands the purpose of UDRP
A recently-decided cybersquatting dispute at World Intellectual Property Organization is yet another example of a firm misunderstanding what UDRP is for.
UDRP is designed to settle cybersquatting cases, not trademark disputes.
It is not designed to take a domain away from a legitimate business that has chosen a name similar to another business’s name.
Rexel Developpement SAS, a French distributor of electrical products, filed the dispute (pdf) against RexelCyber.com
RexelCyber.com is used by a UK firm that provides cybersecurity services.
Rexel Developpement argued that the domain registrant chose its domain to trade off its goodwill. Apparently, Rexel Developpement offers some cybersecurity services. But looking at its website and what each business does, it strains credulity to suggest the UK firm thought it could benefit from choosing a similar name.
And even if it did choose it for this reason, that would be a trademark dispute, not a cybersquatting dispute.
Panelist W. Scott Blackmer wrote:
The Complainant suggests that the Respondent’s firm name itself was illegitimately selected in an attempt to exploit the Complainant’s reputation, and thus that the website offerings under that name are not “bona fide”. In the Panel’s view the record does not support such an inference. The Complainant’s mark is well established but not in the cybersecurity consulting service market, and others in the United Kingdom also use the name “Rexel”, for a variety of products and services. Thus, there is not a compelling reason to assume that the Respondent meant to create a false association with the Complainant by registering a succession of “Rexel” firms and domain names as it did.
Blackmer denied the dispute.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A. represented the Complainant and Motsnyi Legal represented the domain name owner.
