The Complainant is Sephora of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented internally.
The Respondent is Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. of Krakow, Poland / Paul Tchernitsky of Sephoravip of Brooklyn, United States of America / Radoslaw Szulc of Sephoravip of Grodno, Belarus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NetArt Registrar Sp. z o.o. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 25, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 27, 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 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 1, 2014.
On August 8, 2014 the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both English and Polish regarding the language of the proceeding. On September 1, 2014 the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceedings before September 3, 2014 which was the deadline for submission set out by the Center. On September 2, 2014 the Registrar informed that the registrant of the disputed domain name asked to change its personal information as it was incorrect in the Registrar's system. The Center promptly explained that according to paragraph 2(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), the registrant of the disputed domain name may update its contact details such as address, phone number, fax number or email address, but not the "Registrant Name" or "Registrant Organization" identity. On September 3, 2014 the Registrar acknowledged that a function to change any data in the system was blocked for the registrant of the disputed domain name. In case of the registrant's request to update any contact details, the Registrar will proceed on its own.
On September 10, 2014, the Center received an email communication and attached document from Radoslaw Szulc, in Polish language. Radoslaw Szulc stated that the reason for late submission was the fact that the communication was sent to the old email address and it received not before September 8, 2014. According to Radoslaw Szulc, the data about the Registrant was updated on April 3, 2014 in the Registrar's system. However, the Registrar has not updated the data accordingly in WhoIs database. Radoslaw Szulc provided for the new details of the Registrant: Sephoravip, […] Grodno, Belarus.
On September 15, 2014, the Center requested Radoslaw Szulc to identify himself. On September 18, 2014 the Center received an email communication and attached document from Radoslaw Szulc.
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 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 in both English and Polish the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 28, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center on October 28, 2014. The Response was filed in English with no further comments regarding the language of the administrative proceedings.
The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 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 Complainant is Sephora, a French limited liability company enrolled with the registry of companies of Nanterre under number 393 712 286.
The Complainant is a well-known chain of perfume and cosmetics stores. Additionally, it offers also products of its own private label. It was founded in France in 1969. According to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant, its main services and products (skin care, make-up, fragrance, bath and hair products) are sold throughout the whole world in 1,300 stores and corners. The Complainant is especially developing its network in the United States of America since 1998.
The Complainant operates its activities under several trademarks including, in particular, the numerous SEPHORA trademarks registered throughout the world:
- French trademark registered for products and services in classes 3, 5, 18, 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 44 under No. 1678120 (application field on July 10,1991);
- French trademark registered for products and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 35, 44 under No. 3023240 (application field on April 12, 2000);
- Community trademark registered on May 30, 2004 for products and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42 under No. 000788398;
- US trademark registered on February 27, 2001 for products and services in classes 3, 35, 38, 42 under No. 75394577;
- US trademark registered on April 12, 2000 for products and services in classes 18, 25 under No. 76212530;
- International trademark registered on May 3,1973 for products and services in classes 3, 5, 35, 42 under No. 398767;
- International trademark registered on October 10, 2000 for products and services in classes 5, 8, 16,18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 35, 42) under No. 749589.
There are three entities or persons named as the Respondent: (1) Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. of Krakow, Poland; (2) Paul Tchernitsky, Sephoravip of Brooklyn, United States of America; and (3) Radoslaw Szulc, Sephoravip of Grodno, Belarus.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2009. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant (a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks
Firstly, the Complainant contends that it is the sole owner of the SEPHORA trademarks registered and used in numerous countries for cosmetic products and beauty retail stores. In the Complainant's view, the public has come to associate the SEPHORA trademark exclusively with quality items marketed by the Complainant. The above mentioned trademarks owned by the Complainant were all filed and registered before the disputed domain name was registered (December 15, 2009). Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the trademark SEPHORA is also intensively used on the Internet through several official websites, that offer online store services to consumers such as "" in English or "" in French. These websites are accessible by domain names (owned by the Complainant) which incorporate the trademark SEPHORA.
Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to the website that has been promoting cosmetic products in violation of the Complainant's trademarks rights and other related intellectual property rights (corporate and trade names, domain names) owned by it. The Complainant contends that its counsel sent on March 29, 2014 a cease and desist letter to the Registrant of the disputed domain name (Paul Tchernitsky at that time) before it was replaced by Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. in WhoIs database. However, the Complainant did not receive any reply to this a cease and desist letter.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name incorporates the SEPHORA trademark in its entirety. This term constitutes the first part of the disputed domain name , composed by the junction of the two following terms: "sephora" and "vip". In the Complainant's view, the word "sephora" is the dominant and essential part of the disputed domain name. On the other hand, the term "vip" is a short acronym composed only by three letters, meaning "very important person". The Complainant claims that the addition of this short and common abbreviation to the dominant term "sephora" in the disputed domain name does not render this domain name different from the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant believes that junction of the words "sephora" and "vip" indicates that the website under the disputed domain name provides a specific website for the Complainant's VIP customers. Thus, adding the term "vip" in the disputed domain name increases the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's SEPHORA trademark, as "vip" is a descriptive term which reinforces the association between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant relied on previous UDRP decisions while claiming that "simply adding a common or a generic term to a notorious trademark is not sufficient to give the domain name an individual meaning and prevent the overall impression that the domain name has some sort of connection with the Complainant". (b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant claims that neither "sephoravip" is protected by any trademark registration nor the Respondent owns any intellectual property regarding a word "sephora". However, it mentions about the very recent application for the "SEPHORAVIP" trademark which was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on April 10, 2014 by Sephoravip, Radoslaw Szulic, located at the same address mentioned on the website accessible under the disputed domain name: Brooklyn, New York, United States. The trademark has not been yet examined and the Complainant fully expect the United States Patent and Trademark Office Examiner to refuse registration of this mark on the basis of Complainant's numerous prior SEPHORA trademarks registrations.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not been given any license or authorization from it to operate a domain name that includes the SEPHORA trademark. Moreover, the Complainant has no business relationship with the Respondent.
In the Complainant's view, the Respondent does not make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as it resolves to a website which has been used for a commercial purpose. The website presents a business-to-customer platform providing cosmetic products of various kinds. The display of several tabs referring to different categories of products reminds the Complainant's website. This, in the Complainant's opinion, can lead consumers to believe that the website "www." is a genuine website operated by the Complainant or at least that the Complainant has authorized such a website to be operated by the Respondent.
The Complainant also noticed that the website "www." name was not accessible between July 4, 2014 and July 15, 2014. In the Complainant's view such a sudden cessation or interruption further confirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. (c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant's prior rights as SEPHORA enjoys worldwide reputation. Thus, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of attracting the Complainant's customers, misleading them, to a third-party website (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)). In the Complainant's view, creating such strong likelihood of confusion between its activity and the disputed domain name is a clear example of bad faith.
Secondly, the Complainant admits that "www." contains a disclaimer stating that "All right Reserved. S is no associated with S". However, the Complainant still believes that "such disclaimer does not minor in anyway on the fact that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. This disclaimer is not visible since it is (i) written in a very short letters and (ii) placed at the bottom of the website". In asserting that the disclaimer does not alter the impression of bad faith registration and use, the Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions.
Thirdly, the Complainant perceives the fact that the Respondent used a privacy service (Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o.) in WhoIs database after receiving the cease and desist letter filed by the Complainant's counsel on March 29, 2014 as a confirmation that the disputed domain name is a further evidence of registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent
Firstly, the Respondent contends that the disputed domain name was legally purchased from NetArt Registrar Sp.z.o.o on December 15, 2009. Then, on March 21, 2011 the company Sephoravip was registered with the State of New York County of Kings Supreme Court. On July 10, 2014 the company Sephoravip was registered as a limited liability company with the District Court for Warsaw, Poland.
The Respondent asserts that Sephoravip has been commonly known by the domain name and that the name "sephoravip" came from a name of its investor's - Radoslaw Szulc's - grandmother which was Sephora Goldstein. Furthermore, the term "vip" stands for her life motto: "Victory is Priority". Mr. Szulc named the company after his grandmother to honor her memory. In any event, according to the Respondent, Sephora is a common women name.
The Respondent also claims that the design of the website at the disputed domain name as well as its logo is different that Complainant's ones. Moreover, the Respondent stated: "To satisfy Sephora (i.e. the Complainant), Sephoravip put legal disclaimer stating that is not part of Sephora".
According to the Respondent, Sephoravip promotes and sells only one brand of cosmetics which is English Ideas Solution. The Complainant, instead, does not offer these kinds of cosmetics. This confirms, in the Respondent's view, that the Respondent has not intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark of the Complainant.
Furthermore, the Respondent believes that it is natural that names have the same roots and it does not frustrate its distinctiveness. By comparing Google search results of "sephora" and "sephoravip", the Respondent states that the disputed domain name does not mislead the public. On the contrary, the Respondent conducts legitimate business which it is trying to protect by the application for its own trademark (filed on April 10, 2014 in the United States Patent and Trademark Office). The Respondent asserts that registration process is pending and most likely "SEPHORAVIP" will be granted legal protection.
The Respondent states that it does not sell any kind of the Complainant's own brand cosmetics and perfumes. It denies the Complainant's allegations that its website reminds the design of ". Then, the Respondent underlines that products such as "English Ideas Solution Cosmetics, Armani, Calvin Klein" have been offered by thousands of other online fragrances sellers.
Finally, the Respondent explains the sudden cancellation or interruption of the disputed domain name as described by the Complainant in the following words:
"Complainant harassed sephoravip's hosting company. The hosting company name is Magento Go. Complainant by harassment and intimidation of Magento Go, forced the management to terminate hosting services with Sephoravip."
The Respondent finally described the ground that the Complaint was based on as "not applicable". 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural (i) Identification of Respondent
The Complainant initially named Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. as the Respondent. This decision was made on the basis of data available from WhoIs database at the time the Complaint was filed. The Registrar of the disputed domain name, in reply to the Center's request, revealed the name and contact details of the underlying registrant (i.e., "Paul Tchernitsky of Sephoravip"). The Center provided the information to the Complainant, and the Complainant subsequently submitted an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant added the new Respondent to the previous one which was a privacy registration service.
It is unclear for the Panel what is the relationship between Paul Tchernitsky of Sephoravip who has originally registered the disputed domain name and Radoslaw Szulc of Sephoravip who appears to hold it now. However, the Panel accepts evidences presented by Radoslaw Szulc to confirm that the data of the registrant of the disputed domain name was changed in the Registrar's system. Consequently, Sephoravip, represented by Radoslaw Szulc, is also named as the Respondent.
The Panel proceeds on the basis that all - 1) Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. of Krakow, Poland, (2) Paul Tchernitsky, Sephoravip of Brooklyn, United States of America and (3) Sephoravip, Radoslaw Szulc of Grodno, Belarus are Respondents in this administrative proceeding and will refer herein to "the Respondent" in the decision.
In any event, the Panel notes that both Paul Tchernitsky and Radoslaw Szulc are related to the same company Sephoravip. (ii) Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Polish. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that "unless otherwise agreed by 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 Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding".
The Complaint was filed in English as the Complainant asserted that the language of the Registration Agreement was English. Moreover, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website (i) using the English language; (ii) selling products in the English language; and (iii) mentioning an address located in the United States of America to return product sold on this website to exchange: Sephoravip, Brooklyn, United States of America.
The Center invited the Parties to submit comments or requests regarding the language of administrative proceedings. On September 1, 2014, the Complainant submitted request for English to be the language of administrative proceedings which introduced following arguments:
- "Even if the Registrar's address is in Poland, it appears that the Registration Agreement is both in Polish and in English and admits that the proceedings language shall be English. Indeed, article V.I of the Domain Name Registration Agreement expressly mentions (Annex A):
V. Domain Transfer
1. A transfer of the domain is effected in accordance with the rules of ICANN available at . The sworn translation of the rules into (he Polish language is presented at . Due to the requirements of ICANN, the version binding upon the Domain Name Holder shall be the original version in the English language.
Moreover, article VII.4 of the Domain Name Registration Agreement adds (Annex A):
VII. Obligation to Observe the Law
4. Any and all disputes relating to an infringement of third party rights shall be considered under an arbitration proceeding, in accordance with UDRP and RDRP documents resolved by ICANN. The said documents, appended hereto, are available at . The Domain Name Holder represents that he has read the
said documents and accepts the same. The sworn translation into the Polish language is presented at . Due to the requirements of ICANN, the version bind ins upon the Domain Name Holder shall be the original version in the English language."
- the website www. is in English and concerns English-speaking internet users,
- the website provides for the following phone number: (518) […] - "518" is a telephone area code for eastern upstate New York;
- the details about the Registrant provided by the Registrar includes the address in Brooklyn, USA.;
- "a trademark application for SEPHORA VIP has been filed in the USA on April 10, 2014 by "SEPHORAVIP" (Radoslaw Szulic) located at the same address mentioned on the website: […] Brooklyn, New York, United States of America",
- "Finally, on March 29, 2014, Sephora send the website owner an English letter in order to inform him about its rights (Annex J). Only after receiving this letter in English, the website owner changed the WhoIs to a privacy protection service in Poland and to an internet service provider located in China. The name of the registrant became anonymous (Annex K). This implied response of the website owner shows that he perfectly understands English".
The Respondent failed to submit any comments or objections regarding the language of the administrative proceedings before September 3, 2014, which was a due date set out by the Center.
Radoslaw Szulc also requested Polish to be the language of the administrative proceedings due to the following facts:
- "Sephoravip Sp. z o.o. is a legal entity registered in Poland with its business seat in Warsaw;
- according to the Geneva Convention, all the legal actions against Sephoravip should be taken
in Poland – as in this jurisdiction Sephoravip was registered;
- Sephoravip is not limited to act only in Poland, it is allowed to conduct its business activity also abroad – however, it does not indicate that it has its legal department abroad;
"www." was created in Polish and then translated to English."
In the opinion of this Panel, the relevant circumstances in this case that should be taken into consideration while determining the language of the proceedings includes the following facts:
- the disputed domain name resolves to a website which is operated in English,
- Sephoravip is registered also in the United States of America,
- by submitting the Response in English, the Respondent proved that it is able to understand and effectively communicate in the language in which the Complaint has been made.
It should be noted that English is not the native language of the Complainant.
Taking all these circumstances into account, this Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceedings to be conducted in English as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. B. The Merits
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements. The three elements can be summarized as follows:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used by the respondent in bad faith.
The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. i. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SEPHORA trademarks such as:
- French trademark registered for products and services in classes 3, 5, 18, 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 44 under No. 1678120 (application field on July 10,1991);
- French trademark registered for products and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 35, 44 under No. 3023240 (application field on April 12, 2000);
- Community trademark registered on May 30, 2004 for products and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42 under No. 000788398;
- US trademark registered on February 27, 2001 for products and services in classes 3, 35, 38, 42 under No. 75394577;
- US trademark registered on April 12, 2000 for products and services in classes 18, 25 under No. 76212530;
- International trademark registered on May 3,1973 for products and services in classes 3, 5, 35, 42 under No. 398767;
- International trademark registered on October 10, 2000 for products and services in classes 5, 8, 16,18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 35, 42) under No. 749589.
The Panel finds that the most distinctive part of the disputed domain name is "sephora", which is identical to the Complainant's trademarks. The Panel agrees with the Complainant's argument that the addition of the suffix "vip" is not relevant. Similar view was previously presented in the UDRP jurisprudence (Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. Rohit Katoch,WIPO Case No. D2011-0402). Indeed, "vip" as a common abbreviation for "very important person" can even be regarded as increasing the risk of confusion.
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix ".com" may be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic Top-Level Domain (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2012-0607).
The fact that the Respondent's application for "SEPHORAVIP" trademark was initially accepted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office is of no relevance for the purpose of the first element of the Policy.
It may be relevant when considering the question of whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and, as a consequence, the Complaint meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ii. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the Panel is not persuaded with the argument that "sephoravip" originates from Radoslaw Szulc's grandmother as there was no evidences presented by the Respondent in the case record that such a person (Sephora Goldstein) has ever existed. The Panel finds also difficult to believe that "vip" stands for "victory is my priority".
The Panel recognizes also that the Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed the Respondent to use its trademark. The Complainant has also no business relationship with the Respondent – the Respondent is not a reseller or distributor of the goods and services offered by the Complainant and protected by the SEPHORA trademarks.
The Respondent's arguments were aimed at establishing that "it makes fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue". However, the Panel does not accept such a defense in the circumstances of the present case. The Respondent's statements that it sells only one kind of cosmetics – namely, "English Ideas Solution" is inconsistent with its further arguments that its front pages promoting different brands (among others: Calvin Klein and Armani). In fact, the Respondent promotes and sells various brands of cosmetics in the same way as the Complainant does. Moreover, even the colors of the Respondent's logo and design of the website at the disputed domain name are mimicking the Complainant's ones.
The fact that the Respondent sells products which are competing with the Complainant's products is further evidence of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.
Regarding the "SEPHORAVIP" trademark application with the USPTO, the Panel notes that this application is still pending and therefore it does not amount to a right or a legitimate interest for the purpose of the Policy.
While the Panel notes that the Respondent is claiming to do business under the name "Sephoravip" in the USA since 2011, the "Business Certificate" provided by the Respondent does not alter the Respondent's behavior, and in view of the finding under the third element, this Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Panel considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy fulfilled. iii. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove the registration as well as use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy gives non-exhaustive illustrations of bad faith registration and use, including the following:
"(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location."
The Panel has no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant's rights in mind when registering the disputed domain name, given the Respondent's activity in the field of cosmetics and perfumes. The SEPHORA trademark is long-established and commonly known, both in the United States of America and in Poland (where Sephoravip is registered). The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
It is equally clear to this Panel that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith. The Panel agrees that the Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks. The Panel notes also that the Respondent is offering products on the website which directly compete with the Complainant's products, and the website is mimicking the Complainant's website.
The Panel does not find the disclaimer that was placed on "www." effective for the purposes of curing bad faith of the Respondent. The Panel agrees with the reasoning of the panel in case Grundig Multimedia B.V. v. Nikolay Zhoukov,WIPO Case No. D2007-1249: "the disclaimer does not alter the impression of bad faith registration and use, as it is placed on a sub page and thus only accessible once the internet user has accessed the disputed domain names." See also ISL worldwide and The Federal International doe Football association v. Western States Ticket Service,WIPO Case No. D2001-0070. In this case the Panel also notes that the disclaimer is not sufficiently clear and prominent.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the Respondent's failure to answer the Complainant's cease and desist letter can be taken into account in a finding of bad faith.
Finally, in the Panel's opinion, the fact that the Respondent used a privacy service just after the Complainant's cease and desist letter was sent further supports its finding of bad faith registration and use. Although privacy shields might be legitimate in some cases, it is difficult to see for this Panel why a cosmetics and perfumes seller needs to protect its identity (Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2008-0598). While the Respondent's use of a privacy service will not in itself constitute bad faith under the Policy, the Panel may still take it into account and draw adverse inferences in appropriate cases (See also Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0453; Microsoft Corporation v. Whois Privacy Protection Service / Lee Xongwei,WIPO Case No. D2005-0642; and CCM IP S.A. v. Traverito Traverito,WIPO Case No. D2007-0542). In the circumstances of this case, the Panel is of the view that it is appropriate to draw adverse inferences from the Respondent's use of a privacy shield.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint has satisfied 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.
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: November 14, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy