A one person panel has just denied A UDRP on the domain name Natura.tv  (Nature in Spanish)

The Complaint was brought by Natura Cosméticos S/A, which has a trademark on the term Natura.

The panel seemed to give a lot of weight to the fact that the domain name was parked by Sedo as a third party, whereby the owner didn’t seem to share any revenue from the parking revenue.

Also the panel noted that the domain has been owned for more than a decade by the current owner.

Here are the relevant facts and findings:

“The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. The Panel will confine itself to making determinations necessary to resolve this administrative proceeding.”

“It is essential to Policy proceedings that fundamental due process requirements be met. Such requirements include that a respondent has notice of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy and the Rules establish procedures intended to ensure that respondents are given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against them, and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., Rules, paragraph 2(a)).”

Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the word trademark NATURA in Brazil, France and other countries, and substantial evidence of use of that trademark in commerce ”

“The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the trademark NATURA in Brazil, among other countries.”

“Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. because: (1) Respondent has no prior rights in the in the NATURA trademark; (2) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark, and there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent; and (3) Respondent is engaged in unfair practices with respect to Complainant’s trademark, referring to various provisions of the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property, to which Brazil, Mexico and the United States are parties. Complainant has satisfactorily made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

“Respondent argues that he is making a legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. Respondent argues that the term “natura” means “nature” in his local language (and other languages), that he is an active environmentalist, and that he registered the disputed domain name for some unspecified purpose unrelated to Complainant and its trademark-protected line of business.”

“In the present proceeding, Respondent has owned registration of the disputed domain name for a decade and has not put it to an active use other than taking advantage of the free parking page offered by Sedo. ”

“Respondent has not indicated any concrete plans to put the disputed domain name to use, but has referred to a generalized right to retain the disputed domain name referring to “nature” because nature is one of his personal interests.”

“Because the Panel decides in favor of Respondent on grounds that Complainant has failed to establish bad faith registration and use, the Panel refrains from deciding whether under the circumstances presented here, Respondent might establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

“”Complainant has not argued that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or another party.”

“The fact that Respondent has owned the registration for a decade without attempting to sell it argues against that intent. ”

“Complainant might have argued (but did not) that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from registering its trademark in a corresponding domain name. Here, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in a pattern of such conduct.”

“Complainant has not argued that Respondent has attempted to disrupt its business.”

“Complainant has argued that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to unfairly take advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s well-known trademark in order to capture revenues from sponsored links and advertisements on the parking page to which the disputed domain name is directed.”

“That suggestion is not persuasive in the circumstances of this proceeding.”

“The “free” parking page to which Respondent has associated the disputed domain name exhibits a very general list of commercial subject matter headings that have no evident connection to Complainant or its trademark.”

“There is nothing on the Sedo free parking page to indicate that it has been specifically tailored to Internet users entering the disputed domain name in a browser (there are no references to cosmetics or perfumes). ”

“There is little or no basis for an Internet user to draw the conclusion that Complainant somehow was acting as the source, sponsor, affiliate or endorser of this free parking page, which expressly states (at its base) that it was provided free to the domain name holder by Sedo.”

“It is difficult for the Panel to discern any injury that may be suffered by Complainant or its trademark from this usage by Respondent.”

“This analysis is complicated by the fact that the Registrar, Sedo, may receive some revenues from the free parking page based on click-throughs. Assuming that Respondent is ultimately responsible for the content of its webpage, there is some attenuated level at which Respondent might be said to be acting for commercial gain (even if it is not directly receiving revenues). ”

“Here, however, Respondent has presented evidence that a search undertaken from his home country generates a parking page with a single sponsored link completely disassociated from Complainant and its trademark. The Panel is unwilling to attribute “bad faith” registration and use to Respondent on the basis of such an attenuated potential for third-party profit.”

“In the present proceeding, Respondent has used a free parking page offered by its Registrar in association with a “nonspecific” list of products and services that bear no evident relationship to Complainant or its products. ”

“The Panel is unwilling to draw from these facts an inference that Respondent was attempting to take unfair advantage of Complainant and its trademark for commercial gain.”