The Complainant is Afilias Technologies Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by M. Scott Hemphill, United States of America.
The Respondent is Mr. Ye Sheng of Guang Dong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 24, 2013. On January 24, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 2013, 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 January 30, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 19, 2013. An informal email was received by the Center from the Respondent on January 31, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2013. 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 current registry operator of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.mobi”. It used the trade mark GOMOBI and has multiple national trademark registrations in the mark GOMOBI, including United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration No. 3980356 in International Classes 009 and 042 and CTM Registration No. 008835985 in International Classes 009 and 042. The Complainant used the GOMOBI mark in a number of domain names including , and .
The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends, the Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are identical except for the gTLD indicator; that the Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith with an intention to divert Internet users to its own webpage which is being used for pay for click advertising. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark GOMOBI with the addition the gTLD. For the purposes of determining identity in domain name proceedings, the gTLD does not need to be considered. The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name as being clearly identical to the registered trademark GOMOBI.
The Panel finds the first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.
In the circumstance of this case, the use made by the Respondent of the website under the disputed domain name for pay for click advertising, it is unlikely that the Respondent could establish any rights or legitimate interests.
None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Panel finds the second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
This case clearly falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“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 Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: March 18, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy