The Complainant is Gardens By The Bay of Singapore, represented by Allen & Gledhill, Singapore.
The Respondent is Kevin Tay of Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 28, 2014. On April 29, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, 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 May 1, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 21, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 22, 2014.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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.
On June 9, 2014, the Center received supplemental submissions from the Complainant. The Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 on June 11, 2014 allowing the Respondent to respond to matters arising from the Complainant's supplemental submissions by June 18, 2014. The Respondent did not respond to the supplemental submissions. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant operates and manages the park and tourist attraction in Singapore known as "Gardens by the Bay" (the "Gardens") which was officially opened on June 29, 2012. The Gardens occupy a 101 hectare of prime real estate in the central business district with multiple prominent steel structures known as "Supertrees" towering up to 50m in the air.
The design, development and construction of the Gardens from 2006 leading up to its official opening were surrounded by significant fanfare, press releases and publicity both in Singapore and overseas. The international master plan design competition for the Gardens garnered submissions by 170 firms from over 24 countries. The Gardens served as a staging site for rowing and canoeing events of the 2010 Youth Olympic Games held in Singapore. It was open to the public in October 2011 and formed part of the activities of the 2011 World Orchid Conference. Since its official opening, the Gardens has become an iconic park of Singapore which has attracted over 7.5 million visitors as of the date of the Complaint. The Gardens has also won over 30 prestigious design and architectural awards locally and internationally including:
- 2014 20th Annual Thea Awards – Award for Outstanding Achievement
- 2013 RIBA Lubetkin Prize – Cooled Conservatories
- 2012 World Building of the Year
- 2011 The Architectural Review MIPIM Future Project Awards – Commendation Award for Big Urban Prjects
- 2010 Green Good Design Award
- 2009 The Architectural Review MIPIM Future Project Awards
The Gardens has been featured in local and international publications and media including:
- CNN International Online
- National G
- Time Online
- Financial Times
- Channel News Asia
- The Straits Times
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations incorporating the words GARDENS BY THE BAY including Singapore trade mark registrations numbers T0616228G and T1209093D which registration dates are August 7, 2006 and July 6, 2012 respectively. The Complainant also operates a website at the URL "www..sg".
The Respondent is an individual residing in Singapore. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 29, 2011. As of March 7, 2014, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website at "www." which prominently featured the domain name and a purported appraisal of the value of the Disputed Domain Name. The website linked to another website at "www." which featured casinos in Macao, China. The Respondent maintained a blog at "" which advertised the Disputed Domain Name for sale and reproduced a quote from the National Day Rally search of Singapore's Prime Minister stating that "Gardens by the Bay will become Singapore's premier urban outdoor recreation space, and a national icon".
The Respondent approached the Complainant on a number of occasions regarding the sale of the Disputed Domain Name. By SMS on October 4, 2012, the Respondent requested for a better offer than an earlier offer for SGD 3,888. By an email on January 21, 2014, the Respondent offered the Complainant the price of SGD 38,888 for the Disputed Domain Name. By an email on February 12, 2014, the Respondent requested for the Complainant for an indication of interest in purchasing the Disputed Domain Name.
Sometime after the Complaint was submitted, the Respondent posted on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name a copy of a police report filed by the Complainant against the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name. The police report referred to the receipt, possession and retention of emails intended for the Complainant but were directed to the Respondent instead because of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also filed a complaint of like nature with the Info-Comm Development Authority of Singapore. The Registrar, in response to the follow-up of the Info-Comm Development Authority of Singapore, took down the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name and froze the email accounts under the Disputed Domain Name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for GARDENS BY THE BAY which the Disputed Domain Name consists in its entirety;
b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any licence or authorization to use the trade mark GARDENS BY THE BAY. The Complainant is not in any way associated or affiliated with the Respondent. There is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in relation to any bona fide offering of goods or services. The website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name was set up with the sole purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to a third party. The Respondent is not known by the name "Gardens by the Bay" and the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is also not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name; and
c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is well aware of the development of the Gardens. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for consideration in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to internationally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website. The Respondent intentionally chose the Disputed Domain Name to generate traffic to the website at "". B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in this proceeding, the following limbs of paragraph 4a) of the Policy must be established:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks in which the Complainant has rights;
b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By virtue of the trade mark registrations for GARDENS BY THE BAY, the Complainant possesses trade mark rights in the trade mark GARDENS BY THE BAY. The Disputed Domain Name entirely incorporates the words in the trade mark GARDENS BY THE BAY. In comparing a domain name and a trade mark, the top level domain of the fully qualified domain name may be ignored. In the present case, the Panel will not take into account the top level domain (i.e., the ".com" portion) of the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel has no doubt that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is the consensus of UDRP panels that a complainant in a UDRP proceeding is only required to show a prima facie case that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent has no association or relation with the Complainant and the Respondent has not been authorized or licenced to use the trade mark GARDENS BY THE BAY. The Complainant has also asserted that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Gardens by the Bay". No part of the evidence before the Panel presents a contrary suggestion.
As far as can be seen, the content of the website at "www." does not appear to offer any goods or services other than the Disputed Domain Name itself, or suggest that the Disputed Domain Name is being used for any other purpose. In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Since no response was filed by the Respondent, the prima facie case stands, thereby also establishing the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The tremendous scale of the Gardens, whether horizontally or vertically, is hard to miss in the evidence and must have been a sight to behold even while under construction between 2006 and 2010 when it was first open to the public. The Panel notes the significant publicity surrounding the Gardens, going back to when the Gardens was conceptualized in 2006 and in conjunction with high profile events like the Youth Olympic Games and World Orchid Conference at which the Gardens served as a venue. All this before the Gardens was even officially launched in 2012, and even more critically, before the Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 29, 2011.
The evidence which patently presents the Gardens as having achieved iconic status in Singapore has not been challenged. The weight of the evidence tendered leaves no doubt in the mind of the Panel that the Gardens, and the identity in the name "Gardens by the Bay" is well-known in Singapore. The content of the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name and the opportunistic manner in which the Respondent has conducted himself in his attempts to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant at escalating prices (all of which exceed the cost he must foreseeably have incurred in registering and maintaining the Disputed Domain Name since 2011) convinces the Panel that the Gardens is highly familiar to the Respondent. It is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Disputed Domain Name other than for the purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses.
Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy identifies a classic case of bad faith registration and use as follows:
"circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."
The Panel holds that the circumstances of bad faith registration and use as described in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy are made out on the evidence in this proceeding.
Since it has already been established that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith in the manner of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, the Panel will not be considering the issue of bad faith founded on paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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.
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy