The Complainant is Citrix Systems, Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts, United States of America (“US”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, US.
The Respondent is WhoisProtectS ProtectService, LTD of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”) / Alexandr golounin of Almaty, Kazakhstan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EvoPlus Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 28, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 4, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 5, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 25, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2014.
The Center appointed Gunnar Karnell as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 2014. 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 disputed domain name was created on September 23, 2004.
The Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for its trademark CITRIX. It has indicated the following U.S. registrations thereof as perfected before the creation of the disputed domain name: March 28, 2000, No. 2334561 (CITRᴉX); July 17, 2001, No. 2469609 (CITRIX); December 11, 2001, No. 2517278 (CITRIX); February 19, 2002, No. 2540187 (CITRIX); and September 3, 2002, No. 2614647 (CITRIX), together with a number of U.S. registrations in 2009 (CITRIX). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a provider of cloud, networking and virtualization technologies. It is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, US, and active in the development, manufacture and distribution of remote access, collaborative tools, virtual desktop solutions and infrastructure systems. It provides support services for all its products and service offerings. At least since 1990, the Complainant has been using in commerce its trademark CITRIX and a stylized CITRIX design for and in connection with virtualization software, hardware and related goods and services. The Complainant partners with over 10,000 companies worldwide in more than 100 countries. Through the Complainant’s widespread use, the CITRIX trademarks have become uniquely associated with the Complainant and its products and services.
The Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not associated or affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent’s use is deceptive and misleading, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s well-known trademark combined with the generic term “test drive”, suggesting that the Respondent’s website provides a test environment or related services for CITRIX branded products. Also, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently displays CITRIX marks without authorization and contains content that suggests that the Respondent’s site is operated by or affiliated with the Complainant. Users who click at the CITRIX logo are redirected to an online pharmacy site, purporting to sell pharmaceutical products such as erectile dysfunction medication. Other links on the website redirect users to sites that sell or advertise sexual enhancement products. The website also includes click-through advertisements to competitors of the Complainant and weight loss and diet advertisements. In using the Complainant’s own trademarks, including the distinctive stylized CITRIX logo, the Respondent includes references to the Complainant’s legitimate products and services.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s multi-registered trademark CITRIX.
The Respondent has no rights or any legitimate claim or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It appears to have been used solely to trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s well-known trademarks. The Respondent has no connection affiliation with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant consented in any manner to the use by the Respondent of CITRIX trademarks. The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and it is used in bad faith. It is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s CITRIX rights when it registered the disputed domain name. Even a simple Internet search using the keyword “Citrix” or basic domain name searches would have revealed the CITRIX trademarks’ connection to the Complainant. The very content of the site to which the disputed domain name resolves, which includes the Complainant’s CITRIX logo and references to the Complainant’s own activities and legitimate products and services, suggests the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. The Respondent must have expected that any use of the disputed domain name would cause harm to the Complainant by leading to confusion of some sort. Furthermore, association of the “Citrix” brand with sites that sell sexual enhancement and weight loss drugs tarnishes the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in its valuable trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s multi-registered and well-known trademark CITRIX together with the word “testdrive”. The latter in the Panel’s opinion does not dispel confusion. The Panel also disregards the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” for purposes of this element of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made evident that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark CITRIX. Also, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is evidently not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interests and there has been no rebuttal from the Respondent. Nothing in the case file gives reason to believe that the Respondent has or has had any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In this Panel’s view, there is no indication on the record that might impair the Complainant’s assertions regarding the facts leading up to its conclusions that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
In light of the above, the Panel confirms that the conditions for transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant are 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.
Gunnar Karnell
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 9, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy