The Complainant is Desko GmbH of Bayreuth, Germany, represented by Fisher Rushmer, United States of America.
The Respondent is Mustafa Mashar of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 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 May 11, 2015. On May 11, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 12, 2015, 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 proceeding commenced on May 15, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 5, 2015.
The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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 German based company with operations worldwide that develops and manufactures hardware solutions for automated data entry and document checks. It has owned and used a United States trade mark registration for the word mark DESKO since 2000 and operates websites at the domain names and .
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 21, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its DESKO trade mark.
The Complainant says that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without its authority and is using it for fraudulent purposes, namely to deceive Internet users by posting false employment positions supposedly available with the Complainant's company. Once the person applies for the position, the employment contract will be sent by the Respondent via an email address at "hr@" offering software for sale as a condition of the employment. The Complainant notes that the Respondent uses the Complainant's trade mark and logo in the course of its fraudulent activities and by way of evidence has submitted a copy of an email sent by the Respondent to one person who applied for a position with it. The Complainant asserts that the physical address used by the Respondent does not exist in Dubai and that its activity is fraudulent and accordingly that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant says that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name recently and obviously for the purpose of its fraudulent activities. It says that the Respondent's use as described above, including the unauthorized use of the Complainant's mark and logo in order to masquerade as the Complainant, to advertise false employment positions and then to provide fabricated employment contracts in order to trick would be employees into purchasing software from the Respondent, amounts to use in bad faith under the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns a registered trade mark in the United States for DESKO under trade mark registration number 2315195. The substantive element "desko" of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark and accordingly the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name appears to resolve to a Go Daddy parking page. However the Complainant has provided an example by way of evidence of the contract forwarded by the Respondent to a potential employee. The contract is in the Complainant's name, uses its logo and features the email address "hr@" and requires the potential employee to purchase an item of software from a third party website in order to commence work. This evidence supports the Complainant's case that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of providing an email address in order to masquerade as the Complainant. The scheme then involves a fraudulent offer of employment in the Complainant's name in order to attempt to sell potential employees a software product. It is apparent that the Complainant has not authorized or permitted the Respondent to use the disputed domain name or its trade mark and logo in this way and the only reasonable inference that the Panel can draw is that the Respondent's scheme is a scam. This is only reinforced by the Complainant's assertion that the Respondent's address is false.
In these circumstances the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and as there is nothing before it to rebut this case, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2015 by the Respondent but by that date the Complainant had owned a trade mark registration for DESKO for approximately 15 years and had made a long standing use of the mark. The Panel notes that the mark appears to be a coined term and is not to its knowledge a common word in the English or German languages and therefore there is little chance of it having been registered by the Respondent, supposedly based in Dubai, by co-incidence. The overwhelming inference in all the circumstances is therefore that it registered the disputed domain name purposefully and in bad faith.
The Panel's view of registration is only confirmed by the fraudulent use of the disputed domain name made by the Respondent as described under Part B of the decision above. It appears that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to be able to use the reply email address of "hr@". This email address was calculated to give the appearance that it belonged to the Complainant and to give authenticity to the bogus employment contract sent by the Respondent in the Complainant's name. In addition the Respondent made an unauthorized use of the Complainant's trade mark and logo in its employment contract and correspondence. The whole scheme was obviously intended to inveigle unsuspecting potential employees into purchasing a piece of third party software that was allegedly required in order for them to start work. Clearly, the use of the disputed domain name for this fraudulent purpose amounts to use in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and therefore Complaint also succeeds under the third element 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.
Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: June 18, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy