WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0809 for naspers.mobi
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Naspers Limited v. Zixuan yang Case No. D2019-0809 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Naspers Limited of South Africa, represented by Spoor & Fisher Attorneys, South Africa.
The Respondent is Zixuan yang of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 11, 2019, 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 April 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 21, 2019.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 2019. 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, Naspers Limited, is a broad-based multinational Internet and media group headquartered in South Africa, offering services in more than 130 countries. Its principal operations are in Internet communication, entertainment, gaming and ecommerce. It was founded in 1915 in South Africa under the name “De Nasionale Pers Beperkt” (National Press Ltd), and officially changed its name to the current Naspers in 1998.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide, including but not limited to the following:
- NASPERS (device) (Trademark No. 1997/06756) registered in South Africa on October 12, 2000;
- NASPERS (device) (Trademark No. 3967952) registered in China on January 7, 2007;
- 南思博 (Trademark No. 13973624) registered in China on April 14, 2015.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2017 and the disputed domain name presently resolves to an active website with active web links.
The Respondent appears to be an individual living in China. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions include the following:
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark NASPERS as the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s mark, combined with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.mobi”.
The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Respondent has not made any legitimate use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has a history of registering well-known domain names and parking them in the same format as the disputed domain name by using the same mobile phone image with no offering of goods and services, thereby demonstrating bad faith. The Complainant also states that the non-use of the disputed domain name also does not prevent a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant’s NASPERS trademark in its entirety (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal,WIPO Case No. D2006-0033; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,WIPO Case No. D2008-1345).
The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark differ in the addition of the gTLD “.mobi”. The addition of the gTLD “.mobi” to the disputed domain name does not avoid con