Complainant is CPC Connect Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Alexander Ramage Associates, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Vladimir Dasevskij of Utena, Lithuania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2013. On November 1, 2013, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 8, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name. The Center sent an e-mail communication to Complainant on November 8, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on the same date.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 3, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 4, 2013.
The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Beginning in 1999, QSoft Consulting Limited (“QSoft”) operated an Internet-based dating agency service and social networking service under the mark GAYDAR. Between May and July 2013, QSoft transferred to Complainant all of its rights in the GAYDAR mark and all of the goodwill and business associated with that mark.
The mark GAYDAR is registered in numerous jurisdictions throughout the world to identify and distinguish the dating agency and networking services offered previously by QSoft and now by Complainant. In addition, as a result of acquiring the business from QSoft, Complainant is now the holder of a large portfolio of domain names featuring the word “Gaydar”.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on or about June 21, 2013. The website to which the Domain Name resolves presents itself as a dating service. The website also contains at least one hyperlink to a website operated by one of Complainant’s competitors, and features an advertisement for one of Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied its burden to establish all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The undisputed record reflects that Complainant holds rights in the mark GAYDAR. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent has made no attempt to rebut the allegation that Respondent had no authority to register the Domain Name, and Respondent has not otherwise come forward to assert his bona fides. On this record, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use the Domain Name in “bad faith” :
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel concludes that Respondent is in bad faith within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Given the content provided at the website under the Domain Name, the Panel has no difficulty concluding that Respondent very likely had the GAYDAR mark in mind at the time he registered the Domain Name. The Panel also concludes, on a balance of probabilities and based on the record and all reasonable inferences, that Respondent is deriving commercial gain through his decision to place on his website both an advertisement from one of Complainant’s competitor dating services and a hyperlink to the competitor’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: December 12, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy