The Complainant is Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, the Bahamas / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services of Santiago, Chile. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , and are registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2015. On September 25, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 29, 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 Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 29, 2015, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 3, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 9, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 30, 2015.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 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
As confirmed by the Registrar in its verification response, the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain names between 2011 and 2013.
As of September 22, 2015, all the disputed domain names were registered to the same entity – Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp at an address in the Bahamas. On September 29, 2015 – six days after the Complaint had been filed, the Center advised the Complainant that the registrant and contact details for all but one of the disputed domain names no longer matched the Respondent named in the Complaint.
For all the disputed domain names except the registrant name was changed to “Ryan G Foo” at an address in Santiago, Chile.
The Complainant is a non-profit organization based in California, United States. It manages Wikipedia, a free, online encyclopedia compiled, edited and maintained by over 70,000 active contributors. Its website is one of the most-visited sites in the world. The Complainant’s Wikipedia project started out in January 2001. The Complainant registered the domain name on January 13, 2001.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous trademark registrations for WIKIPEDIA, the earliest of which are (i) International Registration No. 839132, registered December 16, 2004, WIKIPEDIA (word) in class 41 for the provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet and (ii) United States Registration No. 3,040,722, registered January 10, 2006 (filed September 14, 2004), WIKIPEDIA (standard characters) in class 41 also for the provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet. The record for this registration features a first use claim in commerce of January 13, 2001.
The Complainant asserts that it has unregistered rights in the mark WIKIPEDIA dating from January 13, 2001, and that commercial use of the mark commenced on that date. The domain names and were both registered in January 2001. The Complainant itself was established in 2003, and it assumed ownership of the Wikipedia domain names and related assets from its predecessor at that time.
Many Panels under the Policy have recognized the Complainant’s rights in the WIKIPEDIA trademark. Cases with facts similar to those in the present case include Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Privacy P/Domain Tech Enterprises,WIPO Case No. D2011-1591 and Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Whois Privacy Corp/Ryan G. Foo, PAA Media Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-1098.
Visitors to the websites accessed by the disputed domain names encounter first a page falsely indicating that their computer has been compromised, a pop-up message then appears naming a toll-free number and urging the user to call to have the fault rectified. Further pop-ups appear when the user clicks on the message. Other visits can produce redirections to various sites such as recipes on the “Better Homes & Gardens” website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that this is a typical case of typosquatting which occurs when the spelling of a trademarked term is varied slightly – usually by the addition, deletion or substitution of a letter (or letters).
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WIKIPEDIA trademark, which it first used in January 2001 and in which it had acquired common law trademark rights prior to its first registration. Its registered rights first came into existence in the United States on September 14, 2004.
The Complainant also alleges that the change of registration details after the Complainant had been filed constitutes “cyberflight” which is indicative of bad faith.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that the disputed domain names were all registered and are being used in bad faith. None of the situations in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant’s WIKIPEDIA trademark for the purpose variously of commercial gain by spreading malware with some of the websites leading to pay-per-click parking pages. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Respondent Identity
The Registrar revealed that the underlying registrant behind the privacy shield for four out of the five disputed domain names is Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services. The privacy shield for the disputed domain name was not removed. However, the Panel finds in the circumstances of this case that the underlying registrant of is more likely than not also Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services.
This finding is based inter alia on the following:
- 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 UDRP cases, among others: 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; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Corp. / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services.WIPO Case No. D2015-1098.
- 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 38 out of 39 prior WIPO UDRP cases involving Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services as respondent, I Corp. was used.
See Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-0967 for a similar finding in similar circumstances.
Accordingly, the Panel finds it appropriate under the Policy and the Rules to proceed to the merits as to all the disputed domain names. B. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The likelihood of confusion with the WIKIPEDIA mark is clear from the slightest reference to the disputed domain names. “Wikipedia” is a made-up word which has now achieved worldwide recognition. This is an obvious case of typosquatting, a practice consistently condemned by many panels throughout the existence of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority to reflect the registered trademark in the disputed domain names.
In the absence of any claim by the Respondent that one or other of the situations set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to it, the lack of authority from the Complainant is sufficient. The Respondent could have filed a Response but did not do so.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is established. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Bad faith registration and use is glaringly obvious in this case. The reasons for this finding can be summarized thus:
(a) The obvious typosquatting inherent in the five variants of the Complainant’s mark. Typosquatting is obvious evidence of bad faith (see Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Privacy P/Domain Tech Enterprises, supra).
(b) The Respondent Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services is a serial cybersquatter as has been demonstrated by numerous cases under the Policy. See EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited v. PPA Media Services, Ryan G Foo / Fundacion Private Whois,WIPO Case No. D2012-1093.
(c) By the activities on the websites accessed by the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark.
(d) The worldwide fame of the Complainant and its mark make obvious the inference that the Respondent knew of them at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: November 13, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy