WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Ali Private Company, Ali Kamran Case No. D2010-0610 1. The Parties
The Complainant is RapidShare AG , Christian Schmid, of Cham, Switzerland, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Ali Private Company, Ali Kamran of Lahore, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 19, 2010. On April 20, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to eNom, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 20, 2010, eNom, Inc. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 18, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 19, 2010.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2010. 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 was founded in 2006. It operates a popular file hosting service at their website “” having a storage capacity of several petabytes and an Internet connection capable of transferring hundreds of gigabytes simultaneously.
The Complainant uses the trade mark RAPID SHARE on its services and is the owner of the following trade mark registrations:
Jurisdiction Trade Mark No. Priority Date Trade mark
United States 3313895 September 21, 2005 RAPID SHARE
European Union 004753836 November 21, 2005 RAPID SHARE THE EASY
WAY TO SHARE YOUR FILES
European Union 004753828 November 21, 2005 RAPIDSHARE
The services to which the above registrations relate include “web hosting, computer, presentation of goods and services, and research in databases”. The Complainant also uses a logo comprising the word “rapidshare” and an arrow device.
The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 10, 2008, some years after the priority dates of the Complainant's trade mark registrations. The Respondent's website under the Disputed Domain Name displays a logo containing the word “rapidshare” and an arrow device. The website provides a search engine and links to download information about various software applications and movies that appear to have different origins. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license, permission, or authorization to own or use any domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The Respondent is not commonly known as “rapidsharedownloads” but “Ali Private Company”;
(c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant's trade mark RAPID SHARE is well-known (At this point, the Panel should pause to comment that the Complaint is unclear as to which of the Complainant's trade marks the Complainant claims to be well-known. From the context of the Complaint, the Panel understands the Complainant as referring to the words “rapid” “share”). The website at “” had risen to the twelfth most popular website in the world. The Respondent is using a logo which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's RAPID SHARE logo prominently on the Respondent's website under the Disputed Domain Name. The website also provides search engine and link services, which are services covered by the Complainant's trade mark registrations, exhibiting opportunistic bad faith. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to enable copyright infringement and for commercial gain. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must show the following in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed in this proceeding:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(3) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's trade mark rights in the trade mark RAPID SHARE is established for purposes of these proceeding by the Complainant's trade mark registrations. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entire mark RAPID SHARE differing essentially by the suffix “downloads” in the Disputed Domain Name. The key word in the Disputed Domain Name is clearly the word “rapidshare” and the suffix “downloads” is merely descriptive of it.
The weight of authority and practice developed in past panel decisions is clear. A domain name incorporating a trade mark in its entirety with the addition of non-distinctive prefixes and/or suffixes is considered confusingly similar to the trade mark (eg, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Chanel Inc. v. Dong Jiancai,WIPO Case No. D2010-0144). The suffix “downloads” in the Disputed Domain Name is non-distinctive in the view of the Panel. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark RAPID SHARE and the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since the question of rights and legitimate interests depends on information usually only available to a respondent and not complainant, it is the consensus of past UDRP panel decisions that a Complainant is only required to make out a prima facie case under the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Complainant, being the owner of rights in the trade mark RAPID SHARE, has confirmed that it did not grant the Respondent any rights to register or use the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent also does not appear from the evidence to have any reason for selecting the Disputed Domain Name other than for the purpose of associating the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant. Having regard to the content of the website under the Disputed Domain Name, it becomes patent that the Disputed Domain Name is intended to refer to the RAPID SHARE files which the website purportedly provides access to.
In the circumstances, the Panel holds that a prima facie case has been established that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant, further reinforcing the finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to put forward. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel accepts that for a website at “” to be ranked the twelfth most visited website in the world, the trade mark associated with the domain name of that website must be well-known. This finding is corroborated by the fact that the Complainant's trade mark RAPID SHARE has also been incorporated in its entirety in other domain names which are concurrently the subject matter of other WIPO disputes (RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. PrivacyP /N/A, ivanov yura, Yura Bilyk,WIPO Case No. D2010-0568; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Liao Fei aka Fei Liao,WIPO Case No. D2010-0600; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Liao Fei, WIPO Case No. D2010-0614; RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. TheLeech, McMohan Kumar, WIPO Case No. D2010-0628). Although each case should be determined on its own merits, the circumstances are such that the Complainant's trade mark RAPID SHARE seems to be an attractive choice for being registered as a domain name prefixed or suffixed with other generic words. Therefore, the suggestion that the Complainant's trade mark is well-known cannot be discounted and a prima facie finding is established. Since a Response was not filed, the prima facie finding remains.
The Panel finds that the logo on the Respondent's website is nearly identical to the Complainant's logo. A visitor to the Respondent's website is likely to confuse the logo on the Respondent's website with the Complainant's logo. Since no cogent explanation has been offered by the Respondent, the Panel may only conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trade mark RAPID SHARE.
The Complainant registered its well-known trade mark RAPID SHARE in 2005 and has been using it for a few years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent. The selection of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent clearly speaks of a deliberate intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant and indicate opportunistic bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name (Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Realtime Forex SA v. Rhone Consultants SA,WIPO Case No. D2006-0089).
Further, the use of a logo on the Respondent's website which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's logo further corroborates the finding of bad faith (see eBay Inc v David Sach,WIPO Case No. D2009-1083).
In the absence of any evidence controverting the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Whether the activities of the Respondent amount to copyright infringement is not determinable from the available facts. The existence of advertisements on the Respondent's website under the Disputed Domain Name suggests that the Respondent may be receiving commercial gain. In any event, since the Panel has already decided above that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, it is not necessary to address these issues. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 30, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy