The Complainant is O2 Holdings Limited of Slough, Berkshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Ipulse IP Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Sysya Software Solutions of Guidy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2012. On September 19, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 21, 2012, the Registrar 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 October 2, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 22, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 26, 2012.
The Center appointed Leon Trakman as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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 is the intellectual property holding company of the O2 Group of telecommunications companies. The Complainant owns at least twelve trademark registrations for or including the element O2, in different countries and commencing from at least 1995. Its trademark is widely known in the telecommunications, entertainment and music sectors, not limited to its O2 brand. The Complainant recently acquired the rights to the O2 mark in the United States, previously owned by the American Company Locus Telecommunications that provided prepaid telecommunications card services in the United States.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2012.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website which show references to the Complainant and also to competitors of the Complainant (Annex 7 of the Complaint). The Complainant alleges that the “click through” website is likely to be generating revenue for the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges, firstly, that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and contrary to paragraph 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules. Secondly, it alleges that the Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name, contrary to Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules. Thirdly, it alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, contrary to paragraph 4(a)(iii), 4(b) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3) of the Rules. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, contrary to paragraph 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules. Given the Complainant’s widely known brand and service and its well established O2 trademark, it is most likely that consumers will access the “www.” website on the assumption that the disputed domain name, is owned by, associated with, or otherwise authorized, by the Complainant.
Moreover, it is likely that consumers will associate “O2 helpdesk” services with the Complainant’s helpdesk services. First, the term “helpdesk” is a descriptive term that is associated with the provision of telecommunication services. Second, the “O2 helpdesk” term is distinctive to the Complainant’s business and trademark in providing consumers with O2 helpdesk services. Third, the Complainant is widely associated with the O2 mark in providing consumers with such O2 services. As a result, any helpdesk associated with O2 products is likely to create the impression in the minds of consumers that such help is being provided by the Complainant, or is otherwise authorized by it. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . The Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark right in respect of the disputed domain name. It does not have the Complainant’s permission to use the disputed domain name. It is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial purpose. More specifically, the Respondent does not have any legitimate interests in providing helpdesk services to consumers in the telecommunications industry by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s O2 trademark. Nor does the Respondent have any other right to use the disputed domain name to provide “click through services” to the website of the Complainant and its competitors. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent’s bad faith registration and use includes any one or more of the following intentions: to secure “click through income” by redirecting consumers to the website of the Complainant or its competitors; to sell, transfer, or rent the disputed domain name to the Complainant or one or more of Complainant’s competitors for a profit; or to provide O2 helpdesk services to consumers who are confused into believing that the Respondent is the Complainant, or has the Complainant’s permission to provide such O2 services. Each of these intentions is evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name . Each support the determination that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, or location of a product or service on its website. 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.
Leon Trakman
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 20, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy