A one member WIPO panel ruled in the favor of the domain holder in a case published today on the domain name Artek.com
The complaint was brought by Artek oy ab of Helsinki, Finland founded in 1935.
The Complainant has continuously used the sign “artek” in business since it was founded.
“The Complainant’s business is known worldwide as an innovative contributor to modern design and furniture, building on the heritage of the famous architect and designer Alvar Aalto”.
“The Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trademarks globally for the word mark ARTEK including Canadian trademark no. TMA544135 filed on May 2, 1997 and registered on April 25, 2001; European Community trademark no. 518795 filed on April 16, 1997 and registered on February 4, 2000; and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland trademark no. 1192316 filed and registered on March 17, 1983″.
“The Respondent is a software developer presently based in Canada and is the owner of a software development company.”
“The Respondent’s country of origin is Russian Federation.”
“Artek” (in Cyrillic, “Арте́к”) is the name of a famous former Young Pioneer camp in Ukraine, originally established in 1925 as a vacation or summer camp for “Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union”.
Today, Camp Artek is an international children’s center engaged in the provision of educational camps for disadvantaged and gifted children. The Respondent states that he sent his son to Camp Artek in 2007 and provides an associated group photograph.
On September 19, 2010, the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from the previous registrant for the sum of USD 2,500.
An entry from the “Wayback Machine” shows that on or before May 1, 2011, the Respondent posted two YouTube-hosted videos on the homepage associated with the disputed domain name, the first regarding Camp Artek in 1940 and the second being congratulations offered by Russian astronauts to Camp Artek on its 60th anniversary in 1985.
On August 20, 2011 the website associated with the disputed domain name was hacked and the Respondent took it down. The Respondent says that he has continued to develop the said website on a local computer.
On November 29, 2011, April 29, 2012 and August 7, 2012, the Respondent received unsolicited offers from third parties to purchase the disputed domain name.
On April 23, 2012, the Respondent received an unsolicited offer to purchase the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s representative (although the email concerned did not disclose the Complainant’s interest).…
