The Complainant is GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, United States.
The Respondent is ranjan kumar ram, technext technosoft pvt. ltd.of Ddurgapur, West Bengal, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 2, 2015. On September 3, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 7, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 28, 2015.
The Center appointed Alfred Meijboom as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 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 owner of the following United States trademark registrations:
- No. 2,945,200 for GODADDY.COM of April 26, 2005 for computer and authentication services;
- No. 2,945,201 for GODADDY.COM (stylized with head logo) of April 26, 2005 for computer and authentication services;
- No. 3,672,972 for GODADDY.COM of August 25, 2009 for, inter alia, computer programs, increasing traffic flow to websites on the Internet, design services and parking domain names;
- No. 3,672,975 for GODADDY.COM (stylized with head logo) of August 25, 2009 for, inter alia, computer programs, increasing traffic flow to websites on the Internet, design services and parking domain names;
- No. 4,472,631 for GODADDY.COM (stylized with black oval and head logo) of January 21, 2014 for, inter alia, increasing traffic flow to websites on the Internet, developing and hosting websites and parking domain names;
- No. 4,472,643 for GODADDY of January 21, 2014 for, inter alia, increasing traffic flow to websites on the Internet, developing and hosting websites and parking domain names;
- No. 4,517,021 for GODADDY.COM (stylized with black oval and head logo) of April 22, 2014 for, inter alia, providing business management information, electronic storage of files, designing, developing and hosting websites and providing user authentication services; and
- No. 4,549,193 for GODADDY (stylized with head logo) of June 10, 2014 for, inter alia, increasing traffic flow to websites on the Internet, payment processing by electronic means, designing, developing and hosting websites and parking domain names.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 2, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has used the GODADDY.COM trademarks continuously and extensively in the United States since 1999, and has since developed a significant presence on the Internet through its "" website. The disputed domain name merely adds the word "web" in the Complainant's domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks, particularly in view of the fact that the trademarks are used for goods and services involving website design and maintenance.
The Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not, and has never been, authorized to use the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks for registering and using the disputed domain name, and the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter which the Respondent ignored, while the Complainant's letter via courier was refused. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as it has registered the disputed domain name in order to misleadingly divert consumers by attracting them through the disputed domain name and then offering goods and services similar to those offered by the Complainant. The Respondent obtained the disputed domain name registration with the full knowledge of the Complainant's long prior use and ownership of the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks. As a company involved in web hosting and website designing and development, the Respondent would be well aware of the GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks.
The disputed domain name automatically directs users to the Respondent's website, adding value to the Respondent's website at the expense of the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks, constituting bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. However, as set out in paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), the consensus view of UDRP panels is that the respondent's default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. The Complainant must still establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Although the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent's default, paragraph 4 of the Policy requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in these proceedings. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules. The Panel finds that in this case there are no such exceptional circumstances.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks listed in paragraph 4 above. The Respondent has taken the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks in their entirety and merely added the descriptive word "web". The added word is insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks, and actually enhances the connection given the web related services for which the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks are registered and used, and the nature of the Complainant's business.
Consequently, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent may rebut (e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Panel takes note of the various allegations of the Complaint and in particular that there is no affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent, no authorization has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to the Respondent's website, which offers web hosting and website designing and development services similar to those offered by the Complainant under its GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks. As the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain there is no bona fide offering of goods and services by the Respondent.
The allegations of the Complainant remain unchallenged. There is no evidence before the Panel to show that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service offered on the Respondent's website or location.
In the Panel's view, it is obvious that at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name it must have had the Complainant's GODADDY and GODADDY.COM trademarks in mind as such marks had already been registered and used for many years. Moreover, the Respondent offers services which are competing with those offered by the Complainant making it even more obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panels is therefore satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel is further satisfied that the use which the Respondent made of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its own website constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Consequently, the third and last element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also met. 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.
Alfred Meijboom
Sole Panelist
Date: October 14, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy