Complainant is Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Ltd. of Singapore, represented by Clasis LLC, Singapore.
Respondent is PrivacyP of Queensland, Australia / Hany Septiani of Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 20, 2014. On March 20, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 21, 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 Complainant on March 24, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 28, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 17, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on April 22, 2014.
The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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
Complainant, Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Ltd., is a subsidiary of Asia Pacific Resources International Limited (APRIL) and is part of the APRIL Group of companies. The APRIL Group is in the business of producing and selling pulp and paper and is well known in Asia and internationally as a leading pulp and paper manufacturer.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark APRIL, as issued by a number of countries, including China, Thailand, and Indonesia. Complainant also owns registrations for the mark PAPERONE. The APRIL Group owns and operates the domain name .
The disputed domain name, , was registered on December 6, 2013. Following a demand letter from Complainant's solicitors, the website located at the disputed domain name has been disabled since on or about January 8, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is made up of three components – "april," "asia" and "paper" – all of which are related to the Complainant's business and/or calculated to mislead the public and/or pass off the Respondent's website as being authorized or owned by Complainant. More specifically, Complainant asserts that "april" is identical and/or confusingly similar to its name and APRIL mark, that "asia" is the region in which Complainant actively does business, and that "paper" is closely associated with Complainant's business. Thus, according to Complainant, "taken together, the words "April Asia Paper" are confusingly similar to the APRIL Asia website and/or closely associated with the APRIL Group and/or the Complainant, leading to the inference that the Respondent intentionally sought to divert the Complainant's business away from the Complainant to the Respondent."
In further support of its Complaint, Complainant notes that the content on the disputed domain name is highly similar to that found on the PAPERONE website and that the owner's contact address found on the disputed site is fictitious.
With respect to the issue of "bad faith" registration and use, Complainant contends that, based on the above facts, "it is clear that by using the domain name and creating the infringing Website, which was almost identical to the Paperone Website save for the "Contact Us" page…, the Respondent had (a) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Infringing website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Infringing Website and/or (b) intentionally sought to divert the Complainant's business away from the Complainant to the Respondent." B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the APRIL mark owned by Complainant. The disputed domain name incorporates in full the distinctive term APRIL. The inclusion of the descriptive terms "asia" and "paper" is insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion. See WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.2.
The evidence further establishes that Complainant, through its ownership of registrations for the APRIL mark, has rights in such trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint. There is no evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that it is known by the disputed domain name, or that the domain name is being used in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
This Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not replied to Complainant's contentions and therefore has not rebutted the prima facie case made by Complainant.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the confusing similarity between Complainant's APRIL mark and the disputed domain name, as well as the Panel's review of the website at the disputed domain name, prior to it being disabled, the Panel concludes that, by using the disputed domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such site or the products on such site, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel notes that the disputed site made reference to APRIL fine paper, as well as to the PAPERONE mark. Such fact also supports a determination that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant.
The requisite "bad faith" is further established in this case through argument that Respondent listed an incorrect owner address on his site and that such site mimics to a large extent the look and feel of Complainant's "" website. 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.
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy