Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2009-0273 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, May 06, 2009 (case Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group)

• Judge: Clive N.A. Trotman
• Resolution Date: May 06, 2009
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Decision: Transfer
• Dominio: Generic Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group

Case No. D2009-0273

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California, United States of America, represented by Harvey Siskind LLP, United States.

The Respondent is The Pentium Group of Erlenbach, Zurich, Switzerland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name [pentiumgroup.net] is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2009. On March 2, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 3, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 9, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 29, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2009.

The Center appointed Clive N.A. Trotman, Frederick M. Abbott and Tobias Zuberbühler as panelists in this matter on April 22, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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.

4. Factual Background

The factual background is extracted from material provided by the Complainant.

The Complainant, Intel Corporation, is the manufacturer of the central processor unit (CPU) that is the core of a high proportion of the world’s computers. After some years of giving the CPU a numerical name such as 386, the Complainant coined the trademark word PENTIUM to designate its product.

The Complainant first trademarked the word PENTIUM in 1994, 13 years before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name [pentiumgroup.net].

The Complainant owns over 500 trademark registrations for its PENTIUM mark in approximately 175 jurisdictions throughout the world.

Specimen registrations for the trademark PENTIUM at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have included:

USPTO Reg. No. 1,834,434, May 3, 1994

USPTO Reg. No. 2,173,650, July 14, 1998

USPTO Reg. No. 2,201,867, November 3, 1998

Each of the foregoing registrations is now incontestable under United States law.

Complainant’s current United States registrations include:

USPTO Reg. No. 2,337,151 (incontestable), April 4, 2000

USPTO Reg. No. 2,547,564, March 12, 2002

In Switzerland, being the address provided by the registrant of the disputed domain name, the Complainant holds the following trademark registrations for the trademark PENTIUM:

Registration No. 402307

Registration No. 450261

Registration No. 460968

No facts are available about the Respondent except those provided in the registration details for the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was apparently registered on February 14, 2007.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends, with citations, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark PENTIUM in which the Complainant has rights. The trademark has been...