The Complainant is Varel International Ind., L.P., Texas, United States of America, represented by Murgitroyd & Company, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is St. David Hospital, Aberdeen, Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. D/B/A P. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. D/B/A P a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2011, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. D/B/A P 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 15, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 5, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 10, 2011.
The Center appointed Simon Minahan as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 2011. 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 has established the following facts:
(a) it was originally founded in 1947 as the Varel Manufacturing;
(b) since that time the trade mark VAREL has acquired substantial and viable goodwill and reputation in the oil & gas, and mining industries;
(c) the Complainant holds numerous trade mark registrations containing the VAREL mark in the United States of America and the United Kingdom;
(d) the disputed domain name is registered to a bogus organisation – St David’s Hospital, Aberdeen, Scotland United Kingdom at a non-existent address;
(e) the disputed domain name was registered on March 9, 2011;
(f) the disputed domain name is currently dormant. Previously it resolved to a webpage which displayed inaccessible folders; and
(g) the disputed domain name is being used in connection with bogus employment offers designed to harvest personal information and, ultimately, to defraud recipients of money. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, being comprised of the term “varel” and the descriptive word “oil” which refers to one of the principal industries in which the trade mark is applied, is confusingly similar to its VAREL trade mark. It further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has, by its conduct described in paragraphs 4(e), (f) and (g) above, registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds the Complaint to be properly constituted and further finds it has jurisdiction under the UDRP.
Notwithstanding that the Respondent has not replied to the claims of the Complainant, the Complainant nonetheless has the onus of making out the grounds for transfer or cancellation under the UDRP.
The following conclusions are based on the facts the Panel has found as set out in paragraph 4(a) and as set out below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VAREL trade mark. The Panel finds the Complaint succeeds on this element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In view of the Complainant’s showing of its having a legitimate interest in the VAREL trade mark, and in the absence of any response or submission by the Respondent, the Panel finds, also in view of the Panel’s findings immediately below, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that the disputed domain has been registered and used in bad faith. In particular the Panel considers the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and, by extension, the use of Complainant’s trade mark in connection with a scam is an obvious bad faith use. Further, given the recent registration of the domain name and the alacrity with which use was made of the disputed domain name as an element in a scam, taken with the lack of any legitimate commercial offering, the Panel is prepared to infer that the disputed domain name was also registered in bad faith. Indeed the Panel considers the conduct concerning the registration and use of it, be at the more serious end of the scale. 7. Decision
For 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.
Simon Minahan
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy