The Complainant is Ziggo B.V. of Utrecht, Netherlands, represented by Matchmark B.V., Netherlands.
The Respondent is Emad Girgis Rizkalla of South Glamorgan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2010. On September 24, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT Ltd a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 27, 2010, Melbourne IT Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant sent a confirmation email on September 28, 2010.
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 September 28, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 18, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2010.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on November 2, 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 owns the trademark ZIGGO.
The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant’s mark or to sell its products.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to point to websites offering for sale products that compete with the Complainant’s products.
The Respondent is using on its website at the disputed domain name an identical copy of the Complainant’s distinctive registered device mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it owns various trademarks for ZIGGO and that it uses that mark to offer goods and services involving, inter alia, telecommunication (including hardware) and telephone services. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark ZIGGO and is therefore similar to its trademarks.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been registered on April 30, 2010 while the Complainant’s marks have been registered in 2007 and 2008.
Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, given the fact that it is using on its website at the disputed domain name an identical copy of the Complainant’s device mark in relation to identical or at least similar goods and services to those covered by the Complainant’s registered trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s mark because it contains the mark and merely adds the common term “bay” to form the domain name. See PACCAR, Inc. v. Enyart Associates and T, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0289 (May 26, 2000); see also Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253 (May 29, 2000).
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof concerning this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. It is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that offers products that compete with the Complainant’s products. The Respondent appears to obtain revenue from the sale of those products.
The Respondent (who did not reply) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of the Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent is redirecting Internet users interested in the Complainant’s products and services to its own website for commercial gain and that such use does not fall within the parameters of a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. See AutoNation, Inc. v. Paul Schaefer,WIPO Case No. D2001-0289.
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent (who did not reply) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of the Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Respondent’s actual use of the disputed domain name (as noted above) does not appear to be bona fide because the Respondent operates a website that contains referrals to products that compete with the Complainant, and the Respondent is using on its website the Complainant’s distinctive device mark. This indicates that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Pacific Telesis Group v. E Smith d/b/a The Ripe One,WIPO Case No. D2001-1053.
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy