The Complainant affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, the Respondent has shown that FICEP has been its company's corporate name since its incorporation in 1978.
In addition, the Respondent has also demonstrated that it has been using the said name in the course of their business activities since that date.
In consequence, the panel finds that the Respondent has fulfilled the conditions laid down in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, namely:
(i) that before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has not acquired trade mark or service mark rights.
Peaceful use of FICEP by the Respondent since 1978 is clearly sufficient grounds for recognizing that it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. In this sense WIPO Case No. D2004-0531 can be mentioned.
There is no basis for assessment by the Panelist of other issues, such as whether the Complainant holds superior rights in FICEP under trademark law, since this is not the purpose of this type of proceedings.
A very clear ruling in this regard was issued by the Panelist in WIPO Case 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. Policy 4(a). To attempt to shoehorn what is essentially a business dispute between former partners into a proceeding to adjudicate cybersquatting is, at its core, misguided, if not a misuse of the Policy.
The decision in WIPO Case No. D2001-1324 also ruled along these same lines:
The Policy, though, is a limited tool for acting against certain types of cybersquatting, and provides a contractual-based remedy. If there is a "legitimate interest" as that term is defined in the Policy, the Policy precludes transfer of the domain name, even if the use does not seem "legitimate" in the broader understanding of that word. Cf. e-Duction, Inc. v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-1369 <../2000/d2000-1369.html> (February 5, 2001); The Thread.com, LLC v. Poploff, WIPO Case No. D2000-1470 <../2000/d2000-1470.html> (January 5, 2001).
Lastly, there is likewise no justification for contesting, at this date, the validity of a domain name that has been registered peacefully since 1998. According to the principle of legal certainty, such a long-standing state of affairs cannot be overturned unless there are powerful reasons for doing so.
In consequence, this Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to show that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests.
|