The Complainant is OLX, B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is career solutions of Khurda, 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 January 20, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 21, 2016, 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 proceeding commenced on January 22, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2016.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2016. 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 the owner of registered trademarks for OLX, dating back to at least 2006. The Complainant’s marks are registered in the United States, Pakistan, and India (where the Respondent has his address), among other countries.
The Complainant is based in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, and is also present in over 40 countries and its services are available in 50 languages, making it one of the largest online marketplaces in the world. Its offices are located in Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Delhi, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Lisbon and New York, and it operates subsidiaries in Argentina, Pakistan and China.
The Complainant has registered over 1,000 domain names, including both generic Top-Level Domain names (gTLDs) and country-code Top Level Domain names (ccTLDs), incorporating its trademark. These include and . The Complainant’s websites attract a high amount of visitors: the platform has over 200 million monthly users generating traffic of over 11 billion monthly page views.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 8, 2015 by “career solutions”. Before the website was taken down, the Respondent used it to post fake job advertisements, displaying the name “OLX Jobs (India) Private Limited”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The use of a TLD such as “.net” does not influence when establishing whether or not a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. Further, the addition of the generic term “job” to the trademark is not enough to overcome a finding of confusing similarity.
The Complainant also claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, and neither is the Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant also argues that no disclaimer has been used on the website “www.”,explaining the Respondent’s lack of relationship with the Complainant.
The Complainant has not found any relevant registered trademarks in the Respondent’s name or indications that the Respondent is a legitimate business. Instead, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has intentionally chosen a domain name based on a registered trademark. The website generated fake job advertisement pretending to be the Complainant, including the display “OLX Jobs (India) Private Limited”.
In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent sent an invoice to a user, who paid for registering to apply to an OLX job, using the Complainant’s registered OLX logotype without consent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s website use has demonstrated its knowledge of the Complainant’s brand and business and the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to profit. The offer of purported OLX jobs on “www.” is evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the OLX mark, which is a distinctive and well-known mark. The term “olx” is the dominant element in the disputed domain name, as the term “job” is merely descriptive. In fact, under the circumstances of this case, the addition of the term “job” may actually increase the risk of confusion.
Moreover, when assessing the confusing similarity it is well established that Top-Level suffixes such as “.net” can be disregarded (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides non-exhaustive list of examples of how a respondent might demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. In summary, these are (i) if a respondent has used or prepared to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) if a respondent has been commonly known by the domain name or (iii) if a respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark in issue.
The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to host a website intended to confuse Internet users into believing they have accessed a website under the control of the Complainant cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services. As the panel explained in Drexel University v. David Brouda,WIPO Case No. D2001-0067, if a respondent has chosen a domain name in order to create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant, that does not give the respondent a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. In this regard the Panel notes the lack of any disclaimer of association with the Complainant on the website to which the disputed domain name formerly resolved.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has ever been known by “Olx” or any name identical or similar to the disputed domain name.
Likewise, the Panel finds that the use to which the disputed domain name has been put does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark in issue.
The Panel also finds that no license or authorization of any kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the OLX trademark.
Therefore, considering that the Respondent did not present any allegations or evidence of rights or legitimate interests it might have in the disputed domain name, Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the totality of the circumstances and facts above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the trademark OLX is a well-known trademark and was used and registered well before the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel also finds that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademark OLX which follows from the fact that the Respondent was clearly targeting those seeking jobs with the Complainant and misleading them by using a fraudulent scheme. In fact, the Panel verifies that before the website at the disputed domain name was taken down on the Complainant’s initiative, the Respondent was using it to post fake job advertisements displaying the name “OLX Jobs (India) Private Limited”.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent is thus apparently using the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks for fraudulent purposes with a commercial intent. Such conduct constitutes bad faith.
The Panel therefore considers the requirement of Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) to be 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.
Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Date: March 2, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy