The Complainant is Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America, internally represented.
The Respondents are Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois of Panama, Panama / Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp of Nassau, Bahamas / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services of Santiago, Chile.1 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , are registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2015 against Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, a privacy service. On June 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 9, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Registrar revealed the registrant of the disputed domain names , , and to be Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services. The Registrar revealed the registrant of the disputed domain name to be Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp, a privacy service.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 15, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center sent a reminder in this regard on June 22, 2015.
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 June 25, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 15, 2015. On June 27, 2015, the Complainant, stating that it “inadvertently missed the deadline to amend the Complaint” submitted an amended Complaint. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2015.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 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 nonprofit charitable organization founded in 2003 dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content.
The Complainant’s most well-known service is a free online encyclopedia called “Wikipedia”. Wikipedia is found at the domain name . Since its founding in 2001, Wikipedia has grown and today offers over 33.5 million articles, has over 500 million unique visitors each month, and is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most visited web sites in the world.
The trademark WIKIPEDIA has been registered extensively at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and internationally in numerous countries. The Complainant has registered numerous trademark or service mark registrations for WIKIPEDIA or foreign equivalents, of which the Panel will treat the following as representative for present purposes:
WIKIPEDIA, USPTO, principal register, registered January 10, 2006, stated first use in commerce January 13, 2001, registration number 3040722, international class 41;
WIKIPEDIA, USPTO, principal register, registered September 23, 2008, registration number 3505429, international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42;
WIKIPEDIA, international registration, WIPO ROMARIN database, registered September 20, 2006, registration number 907474, international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42.
The disputed domain names , , , and were registered respectively on the following dates: October 7, 2010; July 1, 2004; March 30, 2005; December 10, 2004 and September 1, 2006.
At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain names took Internet users to a website where a pop-up window informed them that their computers were not protected from adware/spyware and suggested to call a toll-free number for assistance. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademark WIKIPEDIA and has tendered copies of registration certificates or online documentation in respect of several trademarks. The Complainant says its trademark is well known and its website is one of the ten most-visited in the world. The Complainant also says its trademark WIKIPEDIA was registered on January 10, 2006, and additionally that the Complainant has extensive common law rights in its trademark, which was first used in the year 2001.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s five disputed domain names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trademarks.
According to the Complaint, the disputed domain names and contain the full WIKIPEDIA trademark with the mere addition of the letters “o” and “p.” According to the Complaint, the addition of the letters “o” and “p” have no distinguishing capacity in reference to the Complainant’s trademark. It adds also that the mere addition of the letters to the Complainant’s WIKIPEDIA trademark is similar to the practice of “typo-squatting” and is not sufficient to make a domain name distinguishable.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trademark. The substitution of the letters “e” and “w” and the removal of one letter “p” from the middle of the trademark term does not render the disputed domain names distinctive from the Complainant’s trademark. The fact that the Respondent has only altered or removed one letter from the disputed domain names gives them a “greater tendency to be confusingly similar” to the WIKIPEDIA mark, where the Complainant’s trademark is “highly distinctive”.
According to the Complaint, when the WIKIPEDIA trademark and these disputed domain names are compared visually, they also appear confusingly similar. The practice of changing one letter as a method of “typosquatting” has been considered “deliberate” in previous UDRP cases.
The Complaint states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because the Respondent is not a licensee of or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant. Also, the Complainant states that it has never authorized or otherwise condoned or consented to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names.
According to the Complaint, the similarity of the disputed domain names and the Respondent’s choice to engage in the practice of “typosquatting” also indicates that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. Also the Complainant states that the Respondent has neither made preparations to use the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial purposes.
The Complainant states that the Respondent is using , , , and to direct to malware pages and that the disputed domain name redirects to a page that does not load properly.
The Complainant alleges that using a well-known mark to deceive Internet users and maliciously infect their computer systems is clearly an illegitimate use, not a bona fide or fair use.
Finally the Complainant states that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. According to the Complaint, the Respondent reserved, used, and is holding the disputed domain names willfully, in bad faith, and in complete disregard of the Complainant’s exclusive rights to use and authorize the use of the WIKIPEDIA trademarks. The Respondent’s actions constitute an instance of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complaint states that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademarks. The disputed domain names attract Internet users to the website, and do so for “commercial gain,” by “creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website and/or product or service on that website.” This use is also covered by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and is considered evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that a respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the complainant asserts to the applicable provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
By Rules, paragraph 5(b)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “respond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name…”. In the event of a default, under Rules, paragraph 14(b): “…the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.” A. Consolidation
The disputed domain names , , and are registered to Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services.
The disputed domain name is registered in the name of the privacy service Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.
Paragraphs 10(e) and 3(c) of the Rules provide:
“10(e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.”
“3(c) The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.”
These provisions empower the Panel to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in a single decision subject to the requirement that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.
The issue in this case is therefore whether Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services is the underlying domain-name holder behind the privacy shield. The Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that he is, and that as such it is appropriate under the Rules to issue a single decision as to all the disputed domain names.
It is the view of the Panel that the following elements cumulatively demonstrate, on balance, Ryan G. Foo’s control of :
- All the disputed domain names are typos of the WIKIPEDIA trademark, a pattern indicating a single registrant.
- The Respondent, Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services, has a pattern of registering WIKIPEDIA typos as domain names, as reflected in the following prior UDRP cases: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Corp. / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-1098; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, Att: , , , , and ,WIPO Case No. D2015-0882.
- All the disputed domain names, including , are registered with I corp. That the same Registrar, out of all registrars, was used for as the other, highly similar, disputed domain names, indicates a single mind behind the registrations.
- The Respondent Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services has a pattern of registering domain names with I Corp. In fact, in every single one of the prior 33 WIPO UDRP cases involving Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services as respondent, I corp. was used.
- Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services appears in the WIPO UDRP decision database 38 times as a respondent in past and currently active cases. In every one of these cases, he has used either Fundacion private whois or Whois Privacy Corp, the two privacy shields that have been used in connection with .
- The Complaint has attached to the Complaint screenshots of the content of the disputed domain names, including the domain name. They all contained the same alleged malware notice. The Respondent has not denied these assertions so the Panel infers that the assertions of Complainant are true and correct.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name fits Ryan G. Foo’s registration pattern. In sum, the available evidence supports a finding that all the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder in accordance with paragraph 3(c) of the Rules. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has verified that the Complainant has rights in the WIKIPEDIA trademarks, based on its numerous trademark registrations, including its trademark registrations in the United States of America and other international registrations.
It is well-established that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark will normally be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or prominent element of the domain name (Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,WIPO Case No. D2004-0971).
In this case, the only difference between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s WIKIPEDIA trademarks is either the addition of one letter to the disputed domain name or the substitution or replacement of one letter in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain names and contain the full WIKIPEDIA trademark with the mere addition of the letters “o” and “p.”
The disputed domain names ,, and are confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trademark. The substitution of the letter “e” and its replacement by the letter “a”, and the substitution of the letter “w” and its replacement by the letter “e” and the removal of one letter “p” from the middle of the trademark term does not render the disputed domain names distinctive from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the WIKIPEDIA trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. A respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if inter alia the respondent was commonly known by the domain name, or if the respondent’s use of the domain name, prior to notice of the dispute, was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is in default and has therefore provided no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.
According to the Complaint, the Respondent was using the disputed domain names “to deceive Internet users” and “to maliciously infect their computer systems”. The Complaint contains screenshots of the content of the disputed domain names allegedly evidencing this fact. The Respondent has not denied these assertions of the Complainant. There is no evidenced bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain names.
Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, so that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is a well-established principle that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by any entity that does not have a relationship to that trademark can amount to sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use (Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163).
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that WIKIPEDIA is one of the best-known trademarks on the Internet (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Host Master, A Domain Privacy,WIPO Case No. D2015-0132, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Mildred Valentine / Domain Hostmaster,WIPO Case No. D2014-2283).
Given that the Complainant has been using the WIKIPEDIA trademark since at least 2001 and that the Complainant’s website is used all around the world, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the reputation and business activities of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain names.
The Panel is of the opinion that this is a clear case of typosquatting: the Respondent deliberately registered the disputed domain names with slight additions and/or misspellings with the intent to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s website, and such actions amount to bad faith registration and use.
The Panel also notes the Complainant’s allegations of the Respondent’s use of malaware in the disputed domain names in order to infect the computers of Internet users. The Respondent has not denied such allegations. The Panel’s view, in light of the mentioned evidence, is that the disputed domain names may have been used to show Internet users certain pop-up windows informing them of an alleged adware/spyware infection, in order to entice them into buying a spyware program. This is not completely verified in the record, but at least what is evidenced from those messages and the Complainant’s undisputed contentions is that every time a user accessed the disputed domain names such a message was shown to them. Thus it is clear that this is a bad faith use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant also stated that the disputed domain name redirects to a page that does not load properly. In this case the Panel is of the view that such a non-use amounts to bad faith passive use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that the use of layered privacy shields in respect of , as described in the Procedural History, is also indicative of bad faith. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.9.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant 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 names , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2015
1 While this section contains reference to multiple Respondents, as discussed infra, the Panel finds that the Respondent Ryan G. Foo, PPA Media Services, is the ultimate registrant of all the disputed domain names.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy