The Complainant is Camshare, Inc. of Texas, United States of America, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., United States of America.
The Respondents are Simon Guo / PrivacyG (hereinafter the “Respondent” unless otherwise specified) of Beijing, China and Arizona, United States of America respectively. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names and are registered with GoD LLC.
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2012. On July 23, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names and . On July 24, 2012, GoD, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent Simon Guo is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details
On July 23, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to NameSilo, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . On July 23, 2012, NameSilo, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response for the disputed domain name indicating that the Respondent Privacy G is its privacy service and that the registrant of record for this domain name is also Simon Guo. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 31, 2012 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by NameSilo, LLC, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 31, 2012.
On August 1, 2012, the Center received an email communication from “H. Guo” regarding these proceedings. The Center replied on August 2, 2012 by email to this communication stating that without submission of further evidence on the proper identity of the Respondent and/or any connection H. Guo may have with the Respondent or these proceedings, the Center did not envisage taking further action in relation to the email communication received on August 1, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 2, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph (a), the due date for Response was August 22, 2012. The Respondent Simon Guo has sent through several informal email communications, dating July 21, 2012, July 26, 2012 and August 2, 2012.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on August 30, 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
The Complainant has been operating an online video chat community using the website “” since 2003. It has more than 7 million members worldwide. The Complainant has a United States Trademark registration for CAMFROG and device registered with effect from August 30, 2005.
The disputed domain name was created in October 2008. The disputed domain name was created in June 2011. The disputed domain name was created in December 2009 and registered by the Respondent in November 2010.
The three disputed domain names until recently were redirected to websites offering online chat community services and prominently displayed the CAMFROG and device trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark CAMFROG. The addition of “China” does not detract from any similarity and due to it being a country name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not registered any trademarks for CAMFROG.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Among its grounds, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet visitors to its website. B. Respondent
The Respondent responded in an email of July 21, 2012. The gist of the communication was that the Respondent did not consider there was a dispute between themselves and the Complainant and that the Complainant’s Complaint was malicious.
This was followed up by two emails sent on July 26, 2012, denying that the disputed domain name was the Respondent’s domain name. On August 1, 2012, “H. Guo” wrote to the Center stating the Complainant’s evidence is false and that he was the registrant of the disputed domain name . On August 2, 2012, the Respondent wrote to the Center stating the following:
The complainant's evidence is false. the registration and the owner of I all.
I hope that WIPO could safeguard the legitimate rights of the domain name owner.
The Respondent did not otherwise respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As a preliminary issue, the Panel is satisfied from the record (and more particularly from the concerned registrars’ verification responses) that the Respondent Simon Guo is the registrant of all three disputed domain names.
The Panel notes that in the Rules, “Respondent” is defined as following: “Respondent means the holder of a domain name registration against which a Complaint is initiated”. In the circumstances, and given that the privacy service PrivacyG was listed as the registrant of record in the publicly available WhoIs information for the disputed domain name , the Panel will treat Simon Guo / PrivacyG as the proper Respondent in this case.
In the Panel’s view, this is a very simple case of domain name cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are all composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark CAMFROG and the geographic indicator “China”.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (WIPO Overview 2.0)).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Panel notes that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names have been registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that the following should be considered as evidence that the registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith:
(iv) “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Respondent has been using the disputed domain names to re-direct to other websites.
The third element of the UDRP is therefore made out. 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 names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy