The Complainant is Cheyne Capital Holdings Limited of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Dechert, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Abe Shelton, Abe Inc. of San Diego, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 12, 2012. On January 13, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2012, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR 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 January 20, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 9, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 10, 2012.
The Center appointed Simon Minahan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2012. 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
On the basis of the Complainant’s representations and supporting materials filed in this proceeding, there being no contradictory material from the Respondent, for the purposes of determining this Complaint the Panel accepts the following facts as being established by the Complainant:
a) the Complainant is the holding company for the Cheyne Group which business is an international asset manager and has been since 1999;
b) the Complainant has trade mark interests in the words “Cheyne” and “Cheyne Capital” and holds numerous trade mark registrations incorporating those terms in various jurisdictions (hereafter the “Complainant’s Trade Marks”) and has a well-established reputation in those marks;
c) the Cheyne Group maintains a website under the domain name ;
d) the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant or the Cheyne Group to use the Complainant’s Trade Marks or register or use the disputed domain name;
e) the Respondent has no history of trading by reference to the words “Cheyne” or “Cheyne Capital” and is not making any bona fide use, commercial or noncommercial, of the disputed domain name and has not undertaken any demonstrable preparation to do so;
f) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant, the Cheyne Group and the CHEYNE and CHEYNE CAPITAL trade marks;
g) in the circumstances there is virtually no legitimate use the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that on comparison of them, the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks and its domain name. In support of this contention it cites previous WIPO UDRP decisions including Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v JonLR,WIPO Case No. D2001-0428 and Cheyne Capital Holdings Limited v James Martin/Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2011-1732 where it was held the domain name was deceptively similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks.
It further contends that in the factual circumstances set out above at paragraph 4 the Respondent has no legitimate interests in or rights to the disputed domain name.
Further, it contends that in the premises the Respondent has registered and is, by its passive holding, using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In support of these contentions it cites previous WIPO UDRP decisions, Comercia Inc. v. Hiroshy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0615 and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Marks and notes additionally, the desirability of this Panel making findings and applying reasoning consistent with those found and that applied in Cheyne Capital Holdings Limited, supra. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the circumstances of the factual findings set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the circumstances where the Respondent is taken to have known of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name and there being virtually no legitimate use by the Respondent which can be envisaged for the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and, by its passive possession of it, is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Simon Minahan
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy