The Complainant is SARL Transmission of Paris, France, represented by Picovschi Law Firm, France.
The Respondent is Simon Karroll LLC of North Las Vegas, United States of America (the “USA”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EPAG Domainservices GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 30, 2013. On October 30, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 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. On November 6, 2013, the Center informed the parties that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name was German. Accordingly, the Complainant was requested to provide at least one of the following: 1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or 2) submit the Complaint translated into German; or 3) submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. On November 6, 2013, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings, including supporting material. The Respondent did not submit any comments with respect to the language of the proceedings.
On November 13, 2013, the Center informed the Complainant that its Complaint was administratively deficient and invited the Complainant to cure the deficiencies. On November 18, 2013, the Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 19, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 9, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 10, 2013.
On December 17, 2013, due to a technical oversight, the Center in the interest of due process granted the Respondent an additional five days in order to indicate to the Center by return email whether it intended to participate in these proceedings or not. The Respondent did not respond and accordingly, on December 23, 2013, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted a 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 operates a web portal for video chats under the website "". The Complainant is the owner of the trademark WEBCAMO (International Registration No. 847766) with a registration date of December 24, 2004. The Complainant also owns the domain names and since 2003 and 2004, respectively.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2009 and leads to a website offering sponsored links to adult dating sites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends the following:
The disputed domain name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has acquired no rights in the Complainant’s trademark and is not making any legitimate commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The same French audience is targeted by both the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s websites, with similar activities. The Respondent is thus using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceedings
Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Administrative Panel to determine otherwise.
Despite the fact that the language of the registration agreement is German, the Panel determines that the proceedings shall be conducted in English, considering that (i) the Complainant has upheld its view that the language of the proceedings shall be English, (ii) the Respondent is based in the USA and (iii) the Respondent has not submitted any comments regarding the language of the proceedings. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As the Top-level Domain “.org” can be disregarded under this element of the Policy, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s WEBCAMO trademark. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
By not filing a Response, the Respondent has not provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests on the basis of paragraph 4(c) of the policy, or otherwise. There are no indications in the record before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name is being used to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to a website with sponsored links to competing products and services, with the intention to generate income for the Respondent. Such conduct falls under the example of bad faith registration and use of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use and the Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of 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.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy