The Hype Company is a Spanish biotechnology company. The Company deals with the manufacture and sale of fertilizers, growth stimulants, and probiotics. The Company operates under the domain name WeAreTheHype.com. The Company became aware about the presence and use of a domain name TheHypeCompany.com by someone else.
The Company filed a complaint in the WIPO. The Complainant possessed a list of trademarks under different countries and institutions. The Complainant had established Australian trademark, International Trademark, European Union trademark, United Kingdom trademark, Brazilian trademark, Israeli trademark, Canadian trademark rights over HYPE THE HYPE COMPANY semi-figurative mark. Along with these trademarks the Complainant also operates the domain name TheHypeCompany.es. The Complainant sent a Cease and Desist letter to the Respondent which the latter failed to respond to. The Complainant then filed the complaint at WIPO.
The Respondent was a domain name investor. The domain at the time of arbitration was parked for sale at Dan.com.The Respondent claimed no knowledge of the existence of the Complainant. The Respondent argued that the said domain name was registered on a pattern that went like TheCompany.com. He demonstrated the registration of domain names TheBadCompany.com, TheBareCompany.com, TheBehaviorCompany.com, TheBespokeCompany.com, TheCoachCompany.com, TheDietCompany.com, TheFarmCompany.com, and TheStockCompany.com on this pattern. Along with this pattern the Respondent had also registered a number of domains with the term ‘HYPE’ in it. The examples of these domain names are BeyondTheHype.com, HypeGroup.com, HypeLiving.com, WorldOfHype.com, etc.
The panel found out that the domain names were registered before the Complainant started the Company. However, the Complainant had a number of figurative trademarks over the term used in this domain name at the time of its registration. The panel however didn’t find the Respondent using the domain name in a way to harm the Complainant. The Complainant has also presented with facts, the claim that the said domain name was registered on the basis of a pattern. Neither has the Respondent ever offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant. The Complainant thus couldn’t satisfy the criteria of bad faith in registration and use.
The Complaint was thus denied.
You can read the full case here.