Analysis of WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2020-1119

In the domain name dispute case D2020-1119, adjudicated under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the parties involved were AIRY GreenTech GmbH as the complainant and Privacydotlink Customer 3050720 / Samsu Sempena as the respondent. The decision in this case was rendered on July 3, 2020, by panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian. This case centered around the domain name “airy.com.”

Background of the Dispute

AIRY GreenTech GmbH, based in Germany, is a company whose business specifics were not detailed in the complaint, but evidence suggests they produce plant pots designed to improve air quality. The company holds various registered trademarks for the word “AIRY” dating back to June 2, 1998, in multiple classes, including those covering plants, plant pots, watering systems, and other related items. These trademarks were acquired by assignment recorded on October 15, 2015.

The respondent, associated with PT Airy Nest Indonesia, is employed as the Chief Technology Officer. PT Airy Nest Indonesia, incorporated in January 2017, is a technology company providing budget accommodation and travel booking services in Indonesia.

Chronology of Events

Domain Name Acquisition and Offers: The domain “airy.com” was created on October 5, 2003. Between 2015 and 2017, AIRY GreenTech GmbH corresponded with brokers regarding the purchase of “airy.com,” but no agreement on the price was reached. The disputed domain name was later acquired by the respondent’s employer for USD 150,000.

Cease and Desist Notice: A cease and desist notice was sent by the complainant to the respondent on October 29, 2019, which did not receive any response.

Complainant’s Contentions

AIRY GreenTech GmbH asserted that the domain name is identical to their registered trademark “AIRY.”

They argued that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and alleged that it was registered and being used in bad faith.

The complainant also mentioned their unsuccessful efforts to amicably resolve the dispute and acquire the domain name.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent refuted the allegations, detailing the legitimate business use of “airy.com” for their accommodation and travel booking platform in Indonesia.

They also highlighted the significant investment made for the acquisition of the domain name and its relevance to their business operations.

Panel’s Decision

The panel found that while the domain name was identical to the complainant’s trademark, the complainant did not successfully demonstrate that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Furthermore, the panel did not find evidence to conclude that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

As a result, the complaint was denied, and the domain name remained with the respondent.

Conclusion

This case exemplifies the complexities involved in domain name disputes, particularly when both parties have legitimate interests in the same term. The decision underscores the importance of establishing not just trademark rights but also demonstrating the respondent’s lack of legitimate interest and bad faith in domain name registrations and usage.

For more details on this case, you can visit the WIPO website’s case summary for D2020-1119.

In the domain name dispute case D2020-1119, adjudicated under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the parties involved were AIRY GreenTech GmbH as the complainant and Privacydotlink Customer 3050720 / Samsu Sempena as the respondent. The decision in this case was rendered on July 3, 2020, by panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian.…