The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Protection of Private Person of Moscow, Russian Federation / Genadiy Bistriy / Bistrii Gennadii Ignatovich of Kramatorsk, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names and are registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 6, 2017. On March 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 9, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 21, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Parties in English and Russian on the same day regarding the language of the proceeding, and invited the Complainant to respond by March 24, 2017 and the Respondent to respond by March 26, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the Complainant referred to its language request included in the Complaint, and on March 24, 2017 it filed an amended Complaint. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date. On March 28, 2017, the Center requested a clarification from the Registrar in relation to the location of the registrants of the two disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrar made such confirmation. On March 31, 2017, the Complainant submitted a further amended Complaint.

The Center verified that the amended 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 April 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2017.

The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 2017. 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.

In this proceeding, the Complainant has filed its Complaint in relation to two domain names. According to the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, the names and addresses of the registrants of the two disputed domain names do not coincide (although they appear quite similar), which raises the question of whether a consolidation of the proceedings in relation to the two disputed domain names would be appropriate in the circumstances. As pointed out by the Complainant, such consolidation would be appropriate if the two disputed domain names are under common control. In this regard, the Complainant has referred to the fact that the email addresses of the two registrants as disclosed by the Registrar and as used by the Respondent in its correspondence with the Complainant prior to the dispute are identical, and that the names of the two registrants are merely phonetic variations and transpositions of one another. The Respondent has made no comments on these contentions of the Complainant.

The Panel has reviewed the arguments and evidence submitted by the Complainant, and is satisfied that the disputed domain names may be considered as being under common control, as indeed the email address specified by the two registrants is the same and their names appear as phonetic variations of each other. Therefore, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to decide the disputes in relation to the two disputed domain names in the same proceeding.

In respect of the language of the proceeding, the Panel notes the following. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is Russian. Under paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or otherwise specified in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The Complainant has submitted its Complaint in the English language, and requests that the proceeding be held in English on the grounds of fairness and the expeditious resolution of the dispute. The Complainant notes that it is unable to communicate in Russian and that the translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and will delay the proceedings. The Complainant further points out that the Respondent has sent some of its correspondence to the Complainant in English. The Center has invited the Respondent, in both English and Russian, to state its position on the language of the proceeding, but the Respondent has not submitted any comments on this issue.

In view of the above, the Panel is prepared to accept that using the English language in this proceeding will be fair and efficient and will not put either of the Parties at a disadvantage. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of this administrative proceeding be English. At the same time, the Panel will review and take into account all relevant evidence that is available in this case in either Russian or English. 4. Factual Background

In 2009, the Complainant Andrey Ternovskiy created the online chat website Chatroulette, which pairs random people from around the world together for real time, webcam based conversations, and provides online video chat services and online video social introduction and networking services. The Complainant created the name “Chatroulette” by combining the term “chat” (one of the core services offered by the Complainant’s website), with the word “roulette”, which is associated with the thrill of unpredictability. Very shortly after its launch, the Chatroulette website began to receive 500 visitors per day while continuing to experience consistent growth, and only one month later in January 2010, this figure had increased to 50,000 visitors per day (approximately 1.5 million users per month). In February 2010, the traffic increased to approximately 130,000 visitors per day (3.9 million monthly visitors).

The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for the sign CHATROULETTE around the world, including the following registrations (the “CHATROULETTE trademark”):

- The European Union trademark CHATROULETTE with registration No. 008944076, registered on December 4, 2012, covering services in International Classes 35, 38 and 42;

- The German trademark CHATROULETTE with registration No. 302010003706, registered on February 21, 2013, covering services in International Classes 35, 38 and 42;

- The United States trademark CHATROULETTE with registration No. 4,445,843, registered on December 10, 2013, cove