The Complainant is Facebook Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Sleek Names, SL Names, VSAUDHA of Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. 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 April 14, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2015.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a leading provider of online social networking services. The Complainant was founded in 2004, and has since then provided its services to individuals via its website at “”. Access to the website was originally restricted to students at Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, but was quickly expanded to other universities, and in 2006 the website was made available internationally to any individual with an email address. The Complainant has increased its active users from 1 million in 2004 to 1 billion users by September, 2012. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Facebook website had more than 1.39 billion active users and 890 million daily active users worldwide, including more than 110 million active users in India (the location of the Respondent). According to Alexa reports, the Facebook website is the third most visited website in India. In 2014, the FACEBOOK trademark ranked twenty ninth of Interbrand’s Best Global Brands and was selected “top riser” for the second year in a row. The Complainant’s revenues now reach 12.5 billion (USD) annually.
The Complainant owns many domain names consisting of the FACEBOOK trademark, including:
The Complainant also owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for its FACEBOOK trademark, including:
U.S. Trademark No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006
U.S. Trademark No. 3122052, registered on July 25, 2006
Indian Trademark No. 1622925, registered on November 9, 2011
Indian Trademark No. 1871560, registered on February 9, 2012
Community Trademark No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011
International Trademark No. 1075094, registered on July 16, 2010.
The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:
on November 2, 2012
on December 15, 2013
on December 9, 2013
on October 19, 2013
on January 13, 2013
on January 25, 2012
on April 7, 2012
on July 5, 2012
on April 28, 2010
on December 23, 2008
At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain names reverted to the following:
(1) ; ; and directed to websites that displayed the following message: “This would make a great site! But I don’t have the time: (Kindly contact if you are interested to purchase.”Each of these disputed domains also posted a link to “/” which offered a list of domain names for sale;
(2) pointed to a website containing emotion icons, and displayed commercial banners which indicated the disputed domain name was for sale;
(3) and reverted to a blank page, and were both being offered for sale;
(4) featured a page which stated that the domain name is for sale and provided a form where Internet users can submit their “best offer”;
(5) and reverted to an index page and the domain name was being offered for sale on the Respondent’s blog site; and
(6) was not pointing to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark FACEBOOK around the world, including the following Registrations:
U.S. Trademark No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006
U.S. Trademark No. 3122052, registered on July 25, 2006
Indian Trademark No. 1622925, registered on November 9, 2011
Indian Trademark No. 1871560, registered on February 9, 2012
Community Trademark No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011
International Trademark No. 1075094, registered on July 16, 2010.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark FACEBOOK. The addition of the various terms, namely “hack”, “password”, “hacker”, “account”, status”, “survey”, “chat”, “smileys”, and “analytics” do not distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s famous FACEBOOK trademark. Rights and Legitimate interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademarks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the “Facebook” name. The Complainant submits that the use of a famous trademark (or marks confusing therewith) for the purposes of re-sale does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s famous FACEBOOK trademark. The Respondent deliberately registered confusingly similar domain names in order to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain names for monetary gain. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the FACEBOOK trademarks by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.
The Panel further finds that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered FACEBOOK trademark. The disputed domain names contain as a first and/or dominant element the Complainant’s famous trademark FACEBOOK, combined with a variety of descriptive terms, for example, “account”, “password”, “hacker”, “analytics”, “survey” et cetera. The addition of these terms do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names in any material way.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant’s trademark has a very substantial reputation worldwide, and as such the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the FACEBOOK trademark. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark. Many of disputed domain names revert to websites offering for sale, rent or otherwise transfer of the disputed domain names for purposes of monetary gain, and in the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in these disputed domain names.
As to all the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel concludes that due to the worldwide reputation of the FACEBOOK trademark and its associated services, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain names. The Respondent clearly intended to attract users to its websites through the unauthorized use of the famous FACEBOOK trademarks as the primary and/or dominant element of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is using many of the disputed domain names in association with websites which offer the disputed domain names for sale, or transfer, for purposes of monetary gain. Others of the disputed domain names are essentially passively held, which, as has been well established, does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 names, , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: May 29, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy