Westmore · UDRP DecisionAxiscamerasystemsatlanta.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered AXIS mark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith by redirecting it to its own website for commercial gain. The prior commercial relationship between the parties supported the finding that the Respondent knew of the AXIS mark when registering the domain.
The timeline behind axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates the UDRP risk faced by a commercial partner that registers a supplier’s trademark in a domain without authorization and redirects it to its own commercial website. The prior relationship was particularly important because it provided direct context for the Panel’s finding that the Respondent knew of the mark when registering the domain.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Axis AB v. Botwin Communications Case No. D2018-2080 1. The Parties The Complainant is Axis AB of Lund, Sweden, internally-represented. The Respondent is Botwin Communications of Marietta, Georgia, United States of America (“United States”) 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2018. On September 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 2018, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 3, 2018. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on October 3, 2018 and on October 4, 2018. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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 Complainant is a company registered in Sweden. It is a provider of network video security cameras and related products. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations including the following: - United States trademark number 1816664 for a combined mark comprising the term AXIS in larger type, COMMUNICATIONS in smaller type and a pyramid logo, registered on January 18, 1994 in Classes 9 and 42. - United States trademark number 3459646 for the word mark AXIS registered on July 1, 2008 in Class 9 for digital cameras, network cameras, web cameras and Internet protocol-based cameras. The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2011. According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been used to redirect to the Respondent’s website at “www.botwin.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that is was founded in 1984 and is a market-leader in video security and related products. It submits that it has approximately 3,000 employees, operates in 179 counties and had reported sales turnover of SEK 8.6 billion in 2017. The Complainant states that it has operated in the United States since 1998 and that the Americas region accounts for over half its annual revenue. It submits that in addition to over 300 trademarks, it has a significant Internet presence with its principal website at “www.axis.com” and also participates in social media. It exhibits evidence of industry recognition and awards. The Complainant submits that, as a result of these matters, its trademark AXIS has become well‑established in connection with security and surveillance products. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It states that the disputed domain name captures its trademark AXIS in its entirety with the addition of the terms “camera systems”, which is descriptive, and “atlanta” which is a geographical term. The Complainant submits that these additional terms do not negate the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and in fact add to the risk of confusion because the term “camera systems” is connected with the Complainant’s own business. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that while the Respondent has been a partner of the Complainant since 2008, the Complainant has never authorized it to register any domain name incorporating its trademark. The Complainant denies that the Respondent has any independent trademark rights in, or has ever commonly been known by, the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website at “www.botwin.com”, but states that the Respondent does not offer the Complainant’s products at that website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not therefore using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide business. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was obviously aware of its trademark AXIS because of its world-leading status and because the Respondent was active in the same business sector. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly demonstrated bad faith by registering a domain name comprising the Complainant’s trademark plus the term “camera systems” and then redirecting that domain name to its own website where it sells other video surveillance systems. The Complainant states that the Respondent’s website does not offer to supply or install the Complainant’s systems and the Respondent is therefore seeking improperly to benefit from the Complainant’s trademark in order to sell competing products. The Complainant also exhibits correspondence sent to the Respondent in March 2018 and May 2018 requesting the deactivation of the disputed domain name, but states that no response was received. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent has not filed a formal Response in these proceedings. In its email to the Center dated October 3, 2018, it stated that the disputed domain name had been “released” and that no website was connected to it. Its email of the following day referred to that earlier email. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of a registered trademark AXIS. The disputed domain name wholly adopts that mark together with the terms “camera systems” and “atlanta”. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the first of these additional terms comprises descriptive or dictionary words and that the second is a geographical identifier. The Panel finds that these additional terms are not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark and, therefore, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions referred to above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file a Response in these proceedings and has made no submissions as to any rights or legitimate interests that it may claim to have, whether in accordance with the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a manner which misleadingly represents an association with the Complainant, which cannot amount to bona fide commercial use. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark AXIS at the date it registered the disputed domain name. Not only has the Complainant established that it had a reputation in the field of security camera systems, but it has asserted, and the Respondent has not denied, that the Respondent was its commercial partner from 2008 onwards. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent had never been authorized to register a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect to its own website at “www.botwin.com” where it offers goods and services other than those emanating from the Complainant. Based on both the nature of the disputed domain name, combining the Complainant’s trademark AXIS with the term “camera systems”, which reflects the Complainant’s business, and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above, the Panel concludes that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of products or services on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Steven A. Maier Sole Panelist Date: October 19, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around axiscamerasystemsatlanta.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.