WIPO has released their administrative panel decision in regards to the domain name Teflonminne, which I told you about here: DuPont's Teflon does not want to go the way of Hoover - C&D's Swedish bloggers for speaking Swedish.. Quick recap.
Complainant asserts that the word “teflonminne”, forming the distinctive element of the disputed domain name, is not a word of the Swedish language, as evidenced by the fact that the word is not included in The Swedish Academic Glossary (SAOL), being the most authoritative dictionary in regards to the Swedish language.
Complainant further holds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant argues that the domain name’s allusion to the non-stick attributes of the trademark establishes Respondent’s knowledge of the TEFLON mark.
Respondent argues that the term “teflonminne” is an established and frequently used word in the Swedish language.
Respondent further asserts that the word “teflon” may be used in other ways than to describe Complainant’s trademark. Respondent holds that several dictionaries categorize the word “teflon” both as a trademark, an adjective, a noun, a part of speech and defining its “metaphoric extention”.
So far so good, but uh-oh:
According to the Parties the term “minne” is a word used in Swedish, similar to the English term “memory”.
Respondent has sought to show that the word “teflonminne” is a recognized and used concept in the Swedish language used to describe bad memory. Further, Respondent argues that the term “teflon” is used in a descriptive sense, and not only to describe Complainant’s trademark and non stick cook ware. Thus, Respondent is of the opinion that there is no danger that the disputed domain name will be confused with Complainant’s trademark.
However, in this case the addition of the term “minne” to Complainant’s trademark to form the word “teflonminne”, will normally only be understood by Swedish speaking Internet users. In regards to non-Swedish speaking Internet users, which constitute the large majority of Internet users, the meaning of the addition “minne”, and thus the metaphorical meaning of the word “teflonminne”, will elude them. For these Internet users the only remaining distinctive element of the disputed domain name will be the term “teflon”, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Still, all ends well:
Based on the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not registered and used in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.