For a complaint lodged under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy to succeed, it is necessary that the three requirements laid down in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy be met. Those requirements are:
(a) that the domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Domain name identical or confusingly similar to a mark of the Complainant
The Complainant invokes an exclusive right to use the term Vouli in its capacity as the Hellenic Parliament, which is known by that name to the Greek public and appears under that name in the different Greek Constitutions. However, the Complainant does not invoke any registered trademark, consisting of that name, which it might own.
Nor, in the opinion of this Panellist, has the Complainant submitted sufficient documentation to be acknowledged unregistered trademark rights in the term Vouli or secondary meaning, bearing in mind that this is the transliteration of the Greek word for “parliament” and therefore is, in principle, generic. In the fragments of the Greek Constitution submitted by the Complainant in English the word “parliament” is used in the same manner as other concepts commonly encountered in political law, such as “Government”, “President of the Republic” or “Courts”. In the documents submitted in Greek (where the Complainant has not provided a translation) the equivalent of Vouli in Greek characters appears, although there is nothing to lead one to think that it might not be used in the same generic sense in which the word “parliament” is used in the documents in English.
A word such as this, if not linked to a particular country (as it would be, for example, in "Greek Parliament"), may be freely used as a generic term, above all when the word is actually used by more than one country, as would appear to the case here, given that Vouli is likewise used in Cyprus to designate its Parliament. In accordance with paragraph 4.a.i) of the Uniform Policy, the Complainant must show rights in a mark (albeit an unregistered mark) and in this case that has not been done.
It is to be noted that in the official databases of the various trademark offices registered marks with names such as PARLIAMENT or the equivalent thereof in other languages may be found and that the owners thereof are private enterprises unconnected with the parliamentary bodies of the countries to which the languages concerned correspond. Simply by way of example, we may mention CTM registration No. 2456929, UK registration No. 2452927 and US registration No. 3293379.
In short, there is no registered trademark to support the complaint and, in the opinion of this Panellist, the Complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to be acknowledged a trademark right in the term Vouli which might serve to obviate the meaning thereof.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the Complainant has not submitted a translation of the website of the Respondent, which is in Greek, that website indeed appears to contain news and articles on politics and, particularly, current parliamentary business in Greece and Portugal. The domain name <vouli.net> is therefore being used within a context where its adoption proves logical, inasmuch as it makes specific reference to current affairs in Parliament (Vouli). To use a domain name which means “parliament” to host a website relating to parliamentary news would seem well within the bounds of reason. Further, from the content of the website it would appear that the Respondent has been making peaceful use of the domain name for years. This is subsumable under the circumstances demonstrating rights or legitimate interests mentioned in paragraph 4.c.i) of the Uniform Policy.
In the absence of evidence of any exclusive right held by the Complainant, this Panellist is of the opinion that adequate proof or signs of a want of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent has not been submitted in this case.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Nor, in the opinion of this Panellist, has the Complainant provided proof or prima facie evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. In principle, none of the circumstances described in this regard in paragraph 4.b of the Uniform Policy would appear to arise in this case.
Indeed, as previously mentioned, the contested domain name is in keeping with the content of the news items and articles to be found at the corresponding website.
Consequently, in the opinion of this Panellist, it has not been shown that the circumstances under which the complaint could be upheld, in accordance with the Uniform Policy, arise in this case. As was observed in the decision on WIPO case No. No. D2000-1470:
"This Panel is not a general domain name court, and the Policy is not designed to adjudicate all disputes of any kind that relate in any way to domain names. Rather, the Policy is narrowly crafted to apply to a particular type of abusive cybersquatting. To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and used the name in bad faith. "
Similarly, in the decision on WIPO case No. D2003-0003 it was noted that:
"The Panel appreciates that the Complainant disapproves of some of the products marketed by the Respondent and finds it uncomfortable that these are being sold through a web site carrying the name "Mystik." It bears emphasis, however, that the ICANN Policy is "a limited tool for acting against certain types of cybersquatting." AST Sportswear, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1324 <../2001/d2001-1324.html>, at page 4. In the present case, the terms of the Policy afford no relief to the Complainant, which must be left to its remedies, if any, under the applicable national laws."
|