The Complainant is Zynga Inc. of California, United States of America, represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2013. On March 21, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 22, 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 April 3, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 23, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2013.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 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.
The language of the administrative proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is one of the world's leading provider of social game services providing, inter alia, online poker games, word games, board games, role playing games and party games including but not limited to many popular and successful online social games, including Zynga Poker, Zynga Bingo, Zynga Slots, FarmVille, CityVille, Words With Friends, Bubble Safari, ChefVille, and Draw Something, among many others.
Zynga’s games are accessible on Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms and “”.
The Complainant’s trademark and service mark ZYNGA was first used in commerce in 2007 and also established Complainant’s date of first use of the ZYNGA mark in Classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and 45 as early as 2007. The Complainant owns the United States trademark ZYNGA with registration No. 3,685,749, registered on September 22, 2009 in International Classes 9 and 41.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 2, 2009. A. Complainant
The Complainant is one of the major providers of social game services providing. Zynga’s games are accessible on Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms and have made use of the mark ZYNGA in commerce since 2007.
By the end of January 2008, Complainant’s games had been installed over 9.5 million times. Less than two years later, Zynga boasted 129 million monthly active users across its portfolio of more than 25 games. Zynga’s revenues were over USD 500 million in 2010.
According to AppData, as of December 31, 2012, Zynga had five of the top 10 games on Facebook based on daily active users. Zynga’s players have become very engaged with Zynga’s games, with its games being played by 63 million daily active users, worldwide as of December 31, 2012.
As a result of years of commercial exploitation of the Complainant’s mark, the Complainant has developed tremendous goodwill in the mark ZYNGA.
The mark ZYNGA is inherently distinctive, and furthermore, by virtue of the extensive online sales and advertising under the mark ZYNGA, the ZYNGA mark has become well-known within social gaming circles as a source identifier for Zynga’s games and is deserving of protection.
The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent 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
In this Panel’s view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that there is no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s ZYNGA mark in full with the addition of the non-distinctive suffix "support". B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds the following on the record in these Policy proceedings:
- The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, Thus, the burden of production of evidence shifts into the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- The Policy indicates that a registrant may have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name if it was making use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute;
- The Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s rights is presumed since it is a well-known trademark;
- The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks; and
- There is no evidence that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization.
Thus, in this Panel’s view, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use activity.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s site or of a product or service offered on the Respondent’s site.
In this Panel’s view, there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights on ZYNGA mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, indicating that such registration was made in bad faith.
Based on that evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of illegally obtaining benefits and harming the Complainant’s reputation in the market.
Also, based on the undisputed allegations, the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in order to divert Internet users seeking information about the Complainant, evidenced by PPC links to the Complainant and its competitors on the website at the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, and as also supported by the Panel’s findings above under the third element of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy