Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1701
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:28:32+00:00

Document:
Inventa-Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda., Inventa Agência Angolana de Marcas e Patentes Lda., Inventa International Spain -Trademarks and Patents Consultants, S.L., Inventa International, Lda., Inventa - Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda - Sucursal de Macau, Inventa Mozambique, Limitada, Inventa International - São Tomé e Príncipe, Limitada v. Inventa Technologies, Inc.
The Complainants are Inventa-Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda. of Lisbon, Portugal; Inventa Agência Angolana de Marcas e Patentes Lda. of Luanda, Angola; Inventa International Spain - Trademarks and Patents Consultants, S.L. of Madrid, Spain; Inventa International, Lda. of Santiago Island, Cape Verde; Inventa - Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda - Sucursal de Macau of Macau, China; Inventa Mozambique, Limitada of Maputo, Mozambique; and Inventa International - São Tomé e Príncipe, Limitada of San Tomé, San Tomé and Príncipe, represented by Carlos Eugénio Reis Nobre, Portugal.
The Respondent is Inventa Technologies, Inc. of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <inventa.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on August 24, 2012. On August 24, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainants, Inventa-Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda. (hereinafter, Inventa Portugal), Inventa Agência Angolana de Marcas e Patentes Lda. (hereinafter, Inventa Angola), Inventa International Spain -Trademarks and Patents Consultants, S.L. (hereinafter, Inventa Spain), Inventa International, Lda. (hereinafter, Inventa Cape Verde), Inventa - Agentes Procuradores de Marcas e Patentes Lda. - Sucursal de Macau (hereinafter, Inventa Macao), Inventa Mozambique, Limitada. (hereinafter, Inventa Mozambique) and Inventa International - São Tomé e Príncipe, Limitada. (hereinafter, Inventa Sao Tome & Principe) render Intellectual Property services worldwide and jointly compose the Inventa International Group.
Inventa Sao Tome & Principe was incorporated on June 24, 2005.
- Chinese Trademark Registration No 7216166 for INVENTA INTERNATIONAL (word and device), filed on February 24, 2009, in class 45.
Inventa Portugal was also the owner of lapsed trademark registrations for INVENTA (word mark), such as the Portuguese Trademark Registration Nos. 169927, filed on July 1, 1971, in class 16, and 294667, filed on September 16,1993 in class 35.
- Community Trademark Registration No. 10529782 for INVENTA INTERNATIONAL (word and device), filed on December 28, 2011, in classes 35, 41 and 45.
The Complainant Inventa Macao is the owner of the Hong Kong Trademark Registration No. 2000B11848 for INVENTA (word and device), filed on May 13,1999.
The Complainant Inventa Sao Tome & Principe is the owner of the Sao Tome and Principe Trademark Registration No. 492 for INVENTA (word mark), published in 2005, in class 42.
<inventa.com.mo>, registered by Inventa Macao.
The disputed domain name <inventa.com> was registered on February 1, 1995 and, at the time of the drafting of the decision, is not redirected to an active website.
The Complainants contend that they are widely recognized within the field of Intellectual Property (having clients originating from the five continents) and are known by the INVENTA trade name and mark since approximately 40 years.
The Complainants assert that INVENTA has been generally known in the appropriate business or consumers circles worldwide as a sign (trade name and mark) of the Inventa International Group and, consequently, of the Complainant’s Intellectual Property services. The Complainants highlight that, despite the fact that a trade name is the designation adopted by a commercial enterprise to describe itself and to distinguish itself from other businesses and enterprises, it may also be separately protected as a trade mark or service mark, if the trade name is sufficiently used to identify goods or services. Accordingly, the Complainants conclude that they have trademark rights in the word “inventa” as a result of their use of INVENTA for purposes of identifying rendered services since 1971 and of the substantive and valuable goodwill acquired in the unregistered mark INVENTA.
ii) proof of a method by which it is possible to protect an unregistered trademarks in a civil law jurisdiction, achieving a result comparable to that available under an action for passing off by way of an unfair competition action, provided that they could prove a reputation and goodwill in respect of the mark, the deceptive activity of the defendant and the likelihood of damage.
To demonstrate requirement a) mentioned above, the Complainants submitted correspondence, debit notes and receipts from and to suppliers and customers - which are multinational renowned corporations - showing that they have been using the trade name and trademark INVENTA in connection with their services at least as of 1978.
With reference to requirement b), the Complainants conclude that they have established unregistered mark rights in INVENTA since 1971 for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy by virtue of the (i) continuous use (ii) public use and association of the mark to refer to the services provided by the Complainants and (iii) Complainants’ efforts to protect their rights in the mark.
Furthermore, the Complainants contend that, besides their unregistered trademark rights, they also established registered trademarks rights for INVENTA. The Complainants highlight that the oldest of their registered trademark INVENTA (word mark) dates back to the July 1, 1971 and that since then, the Complainants have registered other trademarks and have allowed some trademarks to lapse due to rebrandings of their corporate image. The Complainants underline that, notwithstanding the above, the mark INVENTA has been used continuously by the Complainants since 1971.
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark INVENTA in which they have exclusive rights.
v) according to the Wayback Machine of the Internet Achive, the last activity registered in connection to the webpage www.inventa.com dates back to the February 2nd, 2011, and the non use of the disputed domain name evidences lack of rights or legitimate interests in it.
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainants remark that bad faith is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition as “dishonesty of belief or purpose” and assert the dishonesty of the Respondent’s purpose inherent to the conscious doing of an incorrect conduct, i.e., bad faith, regarding both the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
v) at the time of the disputed domain name’s last renewal, the Respondent was no longer interested in “maintaining valid its connections to” INVENTA as business identifier, as it allowed both its trademark and trade name (and corresponding legal personality) to become ineffective.
As to the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainants highlight that the last activity registered in connection with the web page “www.inventa.com” dates back to the February 2011 and states that, since the disputed domain name is not currently used, the Respondent is not interested in preserving or effectively using the disputed domain name either for lodging a webpage (and offer goods or services) or as a business identifier. The Complainants conclude that the Respondent’s passive holding of <inventa.com> amounts to bad faith. The Complainants also stress that the disputed domain name “is of essential significance to the Complainants”, for example for purposes of communication between the Complainant’s themselves and with clients and official institutes, and that domain names constitute a valuable resource offered for free to the global community and, therefore, must not be wasted in a frivolous manner such as the passive holding of a domain without actively using it.
ii) the documents submitted by the Complainants, that demonstrate their substantial use in the course of trade of INVENTA to identify the intellectual property services provided, from 1978 to present, by the Complainants to companies located in various countries of the world. Such documents include correspondence from and to suppliers, customers and debit notes and receipts from and to suppliers and customers (see, e.g., Thomas Pick aka Pick Inc. v. EUROPREMIUM LTD, Elaine Maria Gross, WIPO Case No. D2008-1010, <bs.com>, summarizing the common methods used to prove that one has established secondary meaning in respect of a particular trade mark: “(i) to demonstrate substantial use in the course of trade of the trade mark in question over a reasonable period (e.g. by producing details of sales and advertising expenditure and samples of one's business literature, advertisements etc.); and (ii) to produce evidence of third party use of the trade mark to identify the trade mark claimant's goods or services (e.g. correspondence from suppliers/customers, press cuttings etc.)”).
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have proven the condition under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, requiring that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
It is well-established that the burden of proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name lies on the Complainants. However, satisfying this burden of proof according to paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy is potentially quite onerous, since proving a negative circumstance is always more difficult than establishing a positive one.
Accordingly, in line with the UDRP precedents, it is sufficient that the Complainants show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production on the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainants are deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110; MetAmerica Mortgage Bankers v. Whois ID Theft Protection, c/o Domain Admin, NAF Claim No. FA852581).
In the present case, the Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has not rebutted the Complainants’ contentions. The Panel, however, is required to evaluate the Complainants’ submissions to ascertain whether the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest has been demonstrated on a prima facie basis.
The Complainants stated that the Respondent is not a company controlled by the Complainants or their authorized licensee, that it is not authorized to use the Complainant’s mark to identify its services or products and that the Complainants have not permitted the Respondent to apply for use of any domain name incorporating the INVENTA mark.
However, according to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, a party may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name as a consequence of having been commonly known by the domain name. As stated in previous decisions (See, i.a., Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc v. Covex Farma S.L., WIPO Case No. D2008-1379, <cavinton.com>), it is reasonable to presume that a party owning rights in a trademark has been known by the trademark, and, consequently, by an identical domain name.
In the case at hand, the Complainants submitted evidence showing that the Respondent owned a registered trademark INVENTA in the United States, filed on October 10, 1996, for computer consulting and systems integration services in the information technologies field. The Respondent is also the owner of a registered company named Inventa Technologies, incorporated in 2000 and which has been put in the “void” status at the beginning of 2010.
In addition, the screenshots of the website that was published at the disputed domain name show that <inventa.com> was actively used, since 1996 to – at least - February 2011 (date of the last screenshot available on “www.archive.org”), to promote the Respondent’s business and services in the technology field, such as database migrations, remote administration/DBA services and remote infrastructure management.
The Panel has taken note of the fact that the Respondent’s trademark registration has lapsed and that the Respondent’s company was put in the “void” status on January 2010. However, in light of the Respondent’s previous rights in the trademark INVENTA and of the active use of <inventa.com> to promote the Respondent’s activity, at least until February 2011, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offer of services without prima facie intent to misleadingly divert the Complainants’ clients, for commercial gain, or to tarnish the Complainants’ trademark, since the Respondent did not provide services competing with the Complainants’ ones.
Furthermore, in light of substantial and good faith use of the disputed domain name made by the Respondent to promote its business from 1996 to 2011, the Panel is unable to infer from the lapse of the trademark INVENTA of the Respondent and the current non use of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has lost its rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
For the reasons detailed below, the Panel also finds that the Complainants failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith.
With particular reference to bad faith registration, the Complainants asserted that it should be assessed at the time of the last renewal of the disputed domain name, dating back to 2009.
The Panel considers that, generally, a mere renewal of a domain name has not been treated by panels as a new registration for the purpose of assessing bad faith. A small number of panels have considered the renewal of a domain name as equivalent to a new registration in certain circumstances, including where it is found that: the registrant changed its use of the domain name prior to renewal; such use amounted to textbook cybersquatting; and the registrant nevertheless proceeded to renew the domain name registration with intent to benefit from its inclusion of the complainant's trademark (see WIPO Overview 2.0).
In the case at hand, the Panel finds that the Complainants failed to demonstrate that the Respondent had the Complainants’ trademark in mind both at the time of the registration and of the renewal of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainants did not demonstrate that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention to trade on the Complainants’ trademark and reputation. In fact, as mentioned above, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name until the beginning of 2011 to promote its own activity under the trademark INVENTA for services which do not directly compete with the Complainants’ intellectual property services.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.