Complainant is Dreamhack AB of Hägersten, Sweden, represented by Advokatfirman Fylgia KB, Sweden.
Respondent is Eighty Business Names of Grand Cayman, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with R Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2015. On July 27, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 27, 2015.
The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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
Complainant is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Sweden that organizes digital festivals and Local Area Network (LAN) parties.
Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the Community trademark (word mark) DREAMHACK, Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), Registration No.: 005583711, Registration Date: October 8, 2007, Status: Active.
The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on May 8, 2009. It redirects to a typical pay-per-click (PPC) website at “www1.” that provides for various hyperlinks to third party websites not specifically tailored to Complainant.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its DREAMHACK trademark.
Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent has no commercial or noncommercial interest in the disputed domain name other than profiting from Complainant’s well-known DREAMHACK trademark and that Respondent has the intent for commercial gain to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Finally, Complainant claims that it is clear from the website available under the disputed domain name that the latter was registered primarily for the purpose of selling advertisement. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions, neither as they were included in the Complaint of July 24, 2015 nor in Complainant’s cease and desist letter dated April 26, 2015. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of special circumstances, the Panel is to decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the DREAMHACK trademark in which Complainant has shown to have rights. It is obvious that the second level domain name in is identical to DREAMHACK and there is a consensus view among UDRP panels (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2) that the applicable top-level suffix in the disputed domain name (e.g., “.com”) would usually be disregarded under the identity or confusing similarity test.
Therefore, the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i) in the case at hand is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is further convinced that on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions, Respondent apparently has neither made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent makes a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use thereof. UDRP panels have generally recognized that using a disputed domain name to redirect to a PPC website may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.6).
Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). In the case at hand, Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s allegations, neither as they were included in the Complaint dated July 24, 2015, which was duly notified to Respondent by the Center on August 6, 2015, nor as they were communicated to Respondent in Complainant’s cease and desist letter dated April 26, 2015.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It remains, thus, for the Panel to determine whether or not the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
The Panel has taken notice that the disputed domain name was first created already on June 1, 2004. The Registrar, however, has confirmed that Respondent registered (or acquired the registration of) the disputed domain name only on May 8, 2009. Complainant, in turn, applied for its DREAMHACK trademark with OHIM already on December 14, 2006, and the registration thereof took place already on October 8, 2007, thus well before the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Accordingly, it is reasonable to argue that Respondent knew or at least should have known of Complainant’s DREAMHACK trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
This assumption is supported by the fact that Respondent recently formed part of numerous UDRP proceedings with the Center that concerned domain names registered by Respondent which were identical or confusingly similar to a variety of (sometimes well-known) third party’s trademarks; in none of these proceedings, Respondent submitted any kind of response and in all of these proceedings (except for one) panels found that the disputed domain names were registered and made use of by Respondent in bad faith.
While the Panel accepts that the term “dreamhack” is composed of two generic words, the overall factual situation in the case at hand is against Respondent and, therefore, is in line with Complainant’s argumentation that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s DREAMHACK trademark, which shall be evidence of the registration and making use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
In this context, it shall finally not be ignored that the Written Notice of the Complaint sent to Respondent by the Center on August 6, 2015 via TNT could not be delivered due to a wrong address, indicating that Respondent provided false WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, apparently in order to conceal its true identity.
Therefore, the Panel finds that also the third element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii) is fulfilled and that, accordingly, Complainant has satisfied all of the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) 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 Complainant.
Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy