WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1015 for apaxpartnersllp.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Apax Partners LLP v. Cathy Safarik Case No. D2019-1015 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Apax Partners LLP, United Kingdom, represented by Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Cathy Safarik, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 3, 2019. On May 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 verification response indicated the expiry date of the Domain Name as May 14, 2019. Accordingly, the Center requested for a confirmation regarding the status of the Domain Name during the proceedings on May 6, 2019. On the same day, the Registrar confirmed that the Domain Name would remain locked until the proceedings concluded.
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 May 7, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on June 4, 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 is a limited liability partnership based in the United Kingdom that is a leading private equity firm. The Complainant has operated for over 40 years and has invested in leading brands such as Travelex, Auto Trader, Orange, Sophos and Tommy Hilfiger. The Complainant operates out of offices in locations including London, New York, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for APAX (the “APAX Mark”) and APAX PARTNERS including United Kingdom Registration No 2348970 for the APAX Mark in classes 16, 35 and 36, registered on July 9, 2004.
The Domain Name was registered on May 14, 2018, by the Respondent and is presently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s APAX Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is the owner of the APAX Mark, having registered the APAX Mark in numerous jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. The Domain Name reproduces the APAX Mark along with the descriptive words/abbreviations “partners” and “llp” that merely reflect the name of the Complainant and do not distinguish the Domain Name from the APAX Mark.
There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the Domain Name or making a bona fide offering of goods and services from the Domain Name, indeed the Respondent makes no use of the Domain Name at all.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant had a significant reputation at the time of registration that the Respondent must have been aware off. Furthermore, it is implausible that a third party could have registered a domain name corresponding to the full legal name of the Complainant without an awareness of the Complainant. Given the nature of the Domain Name, and the fact that the Respondent appears to have provided false contact details to the Registrar there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could use the Domain Name other than in bad faith. The Respondent’s p