The Complainant is Career Education Corporation of Schaumburg, Illinois, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Nuengnoong Phoothong of Pattaya, Chin buri, Thailand. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 5, 2014. On December 8, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 15, 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 December 16, 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 December 16, 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2014. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was January 7, 2015. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2015.
The Center received a communication on December 20, 2014, which the Complainant asked to be disregarded.
The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2015. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is an educational services company focusing on postsecondary education with campus-based, online-based, and hybrid curricula with over 50 campus locations across the United States (“U.S.”), over 7,000 employees and over 50,000 students. It is a publically traded operator of for-profit schools. In 2014, the Complainant recognized total revenues of USD 227.5 million. The Complainant provides information on its services on the Internet at “”. The Complainant’s schools include American InterContinental University (“AIU”), which was founded in 1970 and was acquired by the Complainant in 2001, and which can be found online at “” and “”.
Through its wholly owned subsidiary American InterContinental University, Inc., the Complainant owns rights in several trademark registrations in the United States that comprise the AIU mark, inter alia U.S. trademark registration no. 2827273 AIU, registered on March 30, 2004, and U.S. trademark registration no. 2827270 AIU ONLINE, registered on March 30, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “AIU Marks”).
The disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2010 is being used in connection with a website offering educational services, which contain text sections identical with the content available at the Complainant’s website as well as a logo similar to the Complainant’s. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is present in the instant case.
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AIU Marks, as the relevant comparison is to be made between the second level of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and as the Respondent’s addition of generic terms to the Complainant’s AIU Marks increases the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the AIU Marks.
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way, as the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s marks in any manner, including in a domain name, and as, to the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that features the pillar and globe logo widely associated with the Complainant and displays several of the Complainant’s trademarks, including the AIU trademark, as a means of deceiving Internet users into believing that the website is associated with the Complainant, constitutes an attempt at passing off, which is in itself evidence of the fact that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, the Complainant argues that the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name well after the Complainant and its AIU Marks became famous and well-known demonstrates that the registration occurred in bad faith. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent uses the Complainant’s logo on the website available at the disputed domain name demonstrates that the Respondent is familiar with the Complainant and possesses a thorough knowledge of the AIU and AIU ONLINE brands and business. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the AIU Marks as well as a logo that is almost identical with the Complainant’s logo on the website available at the disputed domain name, and offers services that directly compete with and closely resemble those offered by the Complainant, which constitutes bad faith.
With regard to the communication of December 20, 2014, the Complainant requests such communication to be disregarded as the sender, Mr. Kazemi, is not a party involved in this present matter, as the email address from which the communication was sent does not match the Respondent’s, and as the sender provided no explanation of his relation with the Respondent. The Complainant further argues that the correspondence does not contain the certification and signature required on all responses, that Mr. Kazemi provides no evidence whatsoever to support his claims, and that the Respondent directly copied text from the Complainant’s legitimate website on the website available at the disputed domain name and therefore directly and intentionally targeted the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The communication of December 20, 2014 sent by Mr. Kazemi referred to a Delaware State Corporation named American International Univ Institute, incorporated on September 28, 2010, and which claims to have registered the disputed domain name in September 2010. 6. Discussion and Findings
The first point to be dealt with is the admissibility of the communication of December 20, 2014. Although the sender of the communication did not provide any evidence regarding his relationship with the Respondent, the communication was sent from an email address connected to the disputed domain name and refers to the Complaint. While Mr. Kazemi does not appear to be the Respondent in this case, the Panel finds that he is strongly connected to the disputed domain name, and the Panel considers it important that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and therefore accepts the communication and, consequently, the Complainant’s reply thereto.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's highly distinctive AIU Marks and is confusingly similar to such marks.
It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of generic terms, such as “online” or “univ”, the latter being a common abbreviation of “university”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panels that a complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the domain name will then shift to the respondent.
The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not provide any evidence with regard to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the communication filed by Mr. Kazemi on December 20, 2014 did not include any evidence for the contained assertions and therefore is not qualified to rebut the Complainant’s allegations.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either. The disputed domain name was used in connection with a website offering services comparable to those offered by the Complainant, using a logo similar to the Complainant’s, and partly copying the content available at the Complainant’s website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s well established AIU Marks. Such finding is also supported by the fact that Mr. Kazemi stated that it is a U.S. online education institute and therefore a direct competitor of the Complainant and that the website available at the disputed domain name contains text sections identical with the content available at the Complainant’s website as well as a logo similar to the Complainant’s.
As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the AIU Marks into the disputed domain name and by using such domain name in connection with a website offering services similar to the Complainant’s, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent also used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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.
Brigitte Joppich
Sole Panelist
Date: January 26, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy