Business Magazine

Guilty Of RDNH: JJGC Industria E Comercio De Materiais Dentarios S.A. of Curitiba, Of, Brazil,

Posted on the 08 January 2014 by Worldwide @thedomains

JJGC Industria E Comercio de Materiais Dentarios S.A. of Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, represented by Baril, Brandão & Brofman Advogados (BBB), Brazil has just been found Guilt of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name

The domain holder represented themselves.

Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member WIPO panel:

“The Complainant is based in Brazil but has sales and other operations around the world. Its business is the production, sale, and support of dental implants and tools for installing dental implants and prosthetics. ”

“The Complainant has been in this business since 1993. Submitted with the Complaint is evidence of the Complainant’s ownership of fifty-two registered trademarks or pending applications for trademarks consisting of or including the word “Neodent” in many countries around the world.”

The earliest of these was registered in Brazil in 1997.

This portfolio includes a registration for NEODENT in the Republic of Korea applied for in 2005 and granted in November 2007. The Complainant has conducted its business under the trade name “Neodent” since its inception. Its principal website is “”


The Respondent is a dentist who conducts his practice in the Republic of Korea. He registered the disputed domain name in 2002. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website in the Korean language for Neo Dental Clinic, with the logo




In May-June 2013 the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, first by email, then by post, and last by courier service, but received no reply beyond acknowledgment of receipt.


“”The Complainant provides no evidence that the Respondent, who does business only in the Republic of Korea, knew of the Complainant or its NEODENT marks when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2002, five years before the Complainant obtained its Korean trademark, or of facts that might support an inference of knowledge.”


“Ordinarily if the face of the complaint itself demonstrates a settled reason why the complaint must be denied, a panel may make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). ”

This Panel believes that such a finding is appropriate in this proceeding, for three reasons.


First, as explained in paragraph B above the Complainant, which is represented by counsel, pays no heed to a longstanding rule of decision in Policy proceedings that “Panels have mostly declined to introduce the US concept of constructive (deemed) notice per se into the UDRP.” WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.4.…

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog