The Complainant is QSoft Consulting Limited of Twickenham, Middlesex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Alexander Ramage Associates LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain Privacy of Fareham, Hampshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 8, 2010. On November 9, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 9, 2010, eNom 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 filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 12, 2010.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 17, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 7, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 8, 2010.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 14, 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 is the registered proprietor of the trade mark GAYDAR including in the European Community (filed in 2001 and registered in 2003) and owns 380 domain name consisting of or incorporating that mark including in relation to its dating agency, online introduction, social networking and Internet radio services. The Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2010 and has attached to it a web site offering dating services and using images identical to those on the site of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark GAYDAR including a European Community Registration filed in 2001 and registered in 2003 and owns 380 domain names consisting of or incorporating that mark including in relation to its dating agency, online introduction, social networking and Internet radio services. It has established a substantial reputation and goodwill in those services.
The Domain Name, registered in 2010, apart from the suffix, consists of the Complainant’s trade mark GAYDAR coupled with the letters “vn”, being the country code for Vietnam and denoting the country at which the web site attached to the Domain Name is aimed.
The Complainant has not consented for the Respondent to use any of its trade marks. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. A letter before action was sent to the Respondent, but no reply has been received.
The Complainant is the owner of copyright images used on its web site. The Respondent has copied several of these images and used them on its web site connected to the Domain Name.
Although the web site claims to be a top dating web site in Vietnam, much of the homepage and the FAQs are in English.
The Domain Name has been registered and is being used for the purpose of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the Complainant and driving business to the web site of the Respondent enabling it to pass off a web site that is not the Complainant’’s web site as and for such. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or confusing similarity
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark consisting of the Complainant’s GAYDAR trade mark in its entirety and the generic indication “vn” for a site aimed at Vietnam. The distinctive part of the Domain Name is “gaydar”. The addition of the non distinctive text “vn” does nothing to prevent the confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s GAYDAR trade mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent
The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In the circumstances of this case, and in view of the Panel’s discussion here below, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four non exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a Domain Name in bad faith including:
“by using the domain name [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the [C]omplainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site or location or of a product or service on [its] web site or location.”
The Respondent has not provided any explanation why it would be entitled to register a domain name that includes the Complainant’s trade mark with only the letters “vn” added and offer dating services which are not those of the Complainant as and for the same using images identical to several of those used on the Complainant’s web site and imitating the look and feel of that site. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, and considering the material attached to the Domain Name the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith with an intent to use the Domain Name to attract business to its web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion that its web site is connected to the Complainant by using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and offering dating services not connected with the Complainant as and for the same. 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 20, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy