WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stichting Samenwerkende Publieke Omroepen Midden Nederland v. Erwin Beck Case No. D2018-1729 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stichting Samenwerkende Publieke Omroepen Midden Nederland of Utrecht, the Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., the Netherlands.

The Respondent is Erwin Beck of Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2018. On July 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 1, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In reply to a Complaint Deficiency Notification sent on August 3, 2018, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 7, 2018. The Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on August 9, 2018.

The Complaint was filed in English and the Language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch. On August 10, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Dutch, regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 13, 2018, the Complainant filed a third amended Complaint requesting that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the three amended Complaints 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 August 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2018.

The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 operates an independent regional media channel in the Netherlands under the name RTV Utrecht.

The Complainant is the owner of the Benelux trade mark RTV UTRECHT (device mark), registered under no. 0728632 on October 25, 2002 (the “Trade Mark”), and has been using the trade name “RTV Utrecht” in the Netherlands since 2000.

The Domain Name was registered on May 8, 2018, and resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark of Complainant, as it is phonetically, visually and conceptually identical to the Trade Mark. The Domain Name contains the element “RTV Utrecht” which is identical to the Trade Mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.app” does not cause the Trade Mark and the Domain Name to be sufficiently dissimilar, the Complainant contends, since the gTLD “.app” will be interpreted as being the relevant website relating to the apps the Complainant offers for users of iPhone and Android software.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, as, to the knowledge of the Complainant, the Respondent does not own any rights to a trade mark or trade name including the element “RTV Utrecht”. The Complainant states that it did n