The Complainants are VFS Global Services Private Limited of Maharashtra, India (“the first Complainant”) and VFS Bangladesh (Private) Limited of Dhaka, the People's Republic of Bangladesh (“the second Complainant”), represented by Aditya & Associates, India.
The Respondent is Binary Quest, Ltd of Dhaka, the People's Republic of Bangladesh (“Bangladesh”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
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 August 5, 2014. On August 5, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 2014, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 9, 2014.
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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 11, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 31, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 2, 2014.
The Center appointed Angela Fox as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 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 Complainants are Indian and Bangladeshi companies, respectively. They trade in the supply of global business process outsourcing and technology services to foreign embassies and diplomatic missions in India and other parts of the world. These include providing administrative support relating to the receipt and processing of visa applications. The first Complainant was incorporated in 2001 and serves diplomatic missions of 45 client governments in 113 countries worldwide, including Canada. It processes more than 3.5 million visas annually and operates out of 1,259 Visa Application Centers located in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe. It has successfully processed over 79 million applications since its inception in 2001.
The Complainants have been conducting these activities under the trademarks VFS and VFS GLOBAL since 2002 and 2007, respectively. The Complainants own trademark registrations and applications for VFS and VFS GLOBAL in various forms in a number of countries, including Bangladesh. Annexed to the Complaint were details of the following registrations and applications in India and Bangladesh, specifically: Mark Class Appl. No Country Status
VFS
35
1255698
India
Registered
Trusted Outsourcing Partner to Diplomatic Missions worldwide
9
1258199
India
Registered
9
1455675
India
Registered
9
1555893
India
Registered
5
1555892
India
Registered
16
1726901
India
Registered
VFS
9
83727
Bangladesh
Registered
VFS GLOBAL
9
128236
Bangladesh
Statutory period of notice of opposition is over. Trademark proceeded for registration.
VFS GLOBAL
16
128237
Bangladesh
Statutory period of notice of opposition is over. Trademark proceeded for registration.
VFS GLOBAL
35
128238
Bangladesh
Statutory period of notice of opposition is over. Trademark proceeded for registration.
The Complainants operate a number of country-specific websites providing visa information relating to those countries, allowing the scheduling of appointments and interviews and the provision of status updates. One of those is at “”, which provides information relating to Canadian visas. The Complainants are the only agencies appointed and authorised by the diplomatic mission of the Government of Canada to perform visa processing and facilitation services for citizens of certain countries, including Bangladesh.
Internet searches by the Complainants suggest that the Respondent is a software vendor and technology services company based in Bangladesh. The disputed domain name was registered on September 12, 2013. It links to a website displaying general information on Canada and a link to a page entitled “Visa”. Following that link leads to a page inviting the visitor to enter his or her passport number, visa number and nationality. The nationality box states “Bangladesh”, and although there is a dropdown bar “Bangladesh” is the only option in it.
If a passport number is entered and “Visa Inquery” [sic] is clicked, the data disappears and the empty boxes reappear, this time with a link to the Complainants’ website at “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks and to their domain name . The only additional word, “Canada” is purely descriptive of the country to which the content of the Respondent’s website purports to relate, and to a country for which the Complainants provide authorized visa services.
In addition, the Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainants have never authorized the Respondent to use the VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks, nor is the Respondent known to have any trademark or other rights in it. Moreover, the Complainants contend that due to their continuous and extensive use of VFS and VFS GLOBAL, those marks have become distinctive of the Complainants’ services and have acquired a reputation and goodwill in respect of the Complainants’ services. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of services, but rather a deliberate attempt to impersonate the Complainants and to lure in Internet users who are then persuaded to part with sensitive personal data. Such activities are deceptive and misleading, in the Complainants’ submission, and cannot therefore confer any rights or legitimate interests.
Finally, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. They point to the presence on the Respondent’s web page of a link to the Complainants’ site as evidence that the disputed domain name was registered in the knowledge of the Complainants and their provision of visa services for Bangladeshi nationals wishing to travel to Canada. The Complainants submit that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in order to trade off the Complainants’ reputation in VFS and VFS GLOBAL for financial gain and/or otherwise for the purpose of taking a free ride on, and leveraging off, the Complainants’ reputation in Bangladesh and worldwide. The Respondent’s activities are deceptive and its use of the Complainants’ trademarks to obtain sensitive personal data from visitors threatens unforetold damage to such users, who are unlikely to recognize that the Respondent’s website is not that of the Complainants, the authorized suppliers of visa services to the Canadian Government. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. No exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 14(a) and (b) of the Rules, the Panel will decide the Complaint and shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the panel finds that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(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 in bad faith.
All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have proved ownership of registered trademark rights for marks comprising or incorporating VFS and VFS GLOBAL.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainants’ VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks in their entirety, and differs only in its inclusion of the additional geographic descriptor, “Canada”, and the non-distinctive generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.net”. The geographic descriptor within the disputed domain name directly describes a market in which the Complainants provide authorised visa services for Bangladeshi nationals. Consequently, the presence of that element does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainants’ trademarks, but rather enhances the likelihood that Internet users will perceive the disputed domain name as being that of, or in some way related to or authorised by, the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants have not authorised the Respondent to use a domain name incorporating their VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks, and there is nothing on the facts of this case to suggest any other basis on which the Respondent could realistically claim to have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since in fact no goods or services are offered through the site at all. The “Visa Inquery” [sic] screen does not in fact do anything other than to capture personal data from anyone who completes it.
Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainants’ trademarks. The Respondent’s use is far from fair, being predicated on the assumption that the disputed domain name will bring in Internet users, and in particular Bangladeshi nationals, looking for visa assistance services provided by the Complainants. It is evident that the Respondent is seeking to misleadingly divert Internet users familiar with the Complainants’ services, and any abuse by the Respondent of users’ personal data could well be attributed, wrongly, to the Complainants. It may not be possible for visa applicants to determine how and by whom their personal data was leaked or misused, particularly where visitors to the Respondent’s site go immediately on to the Complainant’s site using the link supplied by the Respondent following the “Visa Inquery” [sic] screen. Indeed, the provision of that link shows that the Respondent is counting on this.
Numerous UDRP panels have found that “once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the registrant does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the evidentiary burden shifts to the registrant to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name” (see, for instance, The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064).
There is nothing on the facts of this case to suggest that the Respondent could invoke any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in order to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case under this heading, and the Respondent has done nothing to refute it. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is evident from the content of the website linked to the disputed domain name that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants and their visa assistance services to Bangladeshi nationals seeking to travel to Canada. It is also clear from the website that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name specifically to target Bangledeshi nationals seeking visa assistance for Canada.
The Respondent has also hidden its identity from visitors to its website. The “Contact” page of the website contains only the following: “Contact Us: Canada High-comision” [sic]. There are in fact no entity details anywhere on the website nor any means of identifying or contacting the person operating it.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to deliberately seek to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ VFS and VFS GLOBAL marks. The facts strongly indicate that these marks were known to the Respondent, who is based in Bangladesh, to be in use for Canada-related visa application services provided by the Complainants to Bangladeshi nationals. The Respondent has done nothing to refute this suggestion, and given the presence of a link to the Complainants’ website it would be difficult for it credibly to do so. While it is unclear whether the Respondent was in fact benefiting commercially from the operation of the website so as to allow a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, it seems most likely that it was, since the website was designed to harvest sensitive personal data which would have a substantial value to fraudsters. If the Respondent was not benefiting financially in some way from this activity, it is difficult to see why it would have engaged in it.
In any event, though, the Panel is satisfied that on the preponderance of the evidence, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent’s evident knowledge of the Complainants’ brands and activities; its apparent impersonation of the Complainants on its website; its withholding of contact details; and its use of an inquiry screen to capture visitors’ passport numbers and other personal data for unknown uses by unknown parties all point to bad faith intent on the part of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name, and in using it.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 first Complainant, VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd.
Angela Fox
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy