The Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Matkowsky Law P.C., United States.
The Respondents are Aman Anand of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India; Ravi Singh of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India; Sunil Singh, of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India; Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas; Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC.
The disputed domain names , and are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
The disputed domain names , and are registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2016. On March 8, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 9, 2016, the Registrar GoD, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On March 10, 2016, the Registrar TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On March 10, 2016, the Registrar Internet Domain Service BS Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 14, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2016. The Center received a communication from a third party to the Complaint on March 21, 2016, disclaiming any relation to the named Respondents and activity in relation to the disputed domain names. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on April 4, 2016.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 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 provides services on the Internet including web directory and search services, email, chat, sports, games, stock quotes, real estate and mortgage information and rate quotes, movie reviews, news, weather, yellow pages directory services, maps, online shopping, travel reservations, classified advertising, audio and video streaming, and web-store hosting and management.
The Complainant was established in 1994 and trades under the name “Yahoo!” as well as the domain name . The Complainant has registered the trademark YAHOO! in a variety of classes in the United States since at least February 25, 1997. The Complainant also has numerous registrations for the YAHOO! trademark around the world.
Most of the disputed domain names were registered between March 19, 2015 and December 20, 2015, with a small number registered on January 11, 2016 and only one registered on November 10, 2014.
Some of the disputed domain names resolve to websites being used as part of a password recovery and technical support scam operation. The rest are inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests that the Complaint be consolidated against multiple respondents, on the basis that the disputed domain names are all under common management and control. This common control is exerted by a single entity and all of the disputed domain names are part of a password recovery and technical support scam operation. The Complainant provides a long and detailed explanation of the need and propriety to consolidate all the disputed domain names.
The Complainant states that all of the disputed domain names incorporate a substantially indistinguishable variation of its YAHOO! trademark, combined with terms either highly related to its customer support services (the terms “help”, “support” and “tech”), or that are geographically descriptive (including the terms “AU”, “Australia” or “Canada”).
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its well-known trademark.
The Complainant also says that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents are intentionally using the fame of the Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet traffic to websites unassociated with the Complainant. The Respondents are using the disputed domain names to perpetrate a common scam operation under the guise of rendering its clients support services that directly compete with those offered by the Complainant. There is no legitimate interest in using the disputed domain names for activities related to fraudulent technical support services.
Finally, the Complainant says that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. The Respondents have the clear goal of disrupting the Complainant’s services by diverting its traffic for commercial gain with the intent of causing confusion. The disputed domain names are so obviously intended to imply a connection with the Complainant that their very use by the Respondents constitutes opportunistic bad faith.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondents 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.” A. Consolidation
The first issue in this case is whether the Complaint can be consolidated against the various named Respondents, as requested by the Complainant. The test for consolidation
The disputed domain names were registered in the names of different individuals.
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 or for a complainant to file a complaint relating to multiple domain names subject to the requirement that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.
The Complainant argues that:
- the Complaint should be consolidated on the basis that the disputed domain names are all under the common management and control of a single entity or network because all the disputed domain name are part of a password recovery and technical support scam operation;
- because this case involves a common nucleus of facts and involves common legal issues, the shared interests of the Parties are promoted by consolidating the dispute to avoid unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, and would generally further the fundamental objectives of the Policy.
It is the view of the Panel that the following elements cumulatively demonstrate, on balance, that consolidation of all the parties and disputed domain names is possible. The named Respondents
The following are the named Respondents (that is, the named registrants), as confirmed by the concerned Registrars, for the corresponding disputed domain names (the order is based on the grouping chart provided by Complainant in Annex 11 of the Complaint):
Reference Number
Respondent - Registrant
Domain name
1
Ravi Singh
2
Ravi Singh
3
Ravi Singh
4
Ravi Singh
5
Ravi Singh
6
Ravi Singh
7
Ravi Singh
8
Ravi Singh
9
Ravi Singh
10
Ravi Singh
11
Ravi Singh
12
Ravi Singh
13
Ravi Singh
14
Ravi Singh
15
Ravi Singh
16
Ravi Singh
17
Ravi Singh
18
Ravi Singh
19
Domain Admin
20
Aman Anand
21
Domain Admin
22
Domain Admin
23
Domain Admin
24
Sunil Singh
25
Sunil Singh
The evidence for consolidation
The Complainant grouped all the disputed domain names into a chart with reference numbers (see above).
According to the Complaint, the disputed domains names with reference Nos. 1 through 18 in the first column on the chart have been grouped together because they all have been registered in the name of Ravi Singh and share the same registrant email address according to the WhoIs.
The disputed domain names with reference Nos. 22 and 23 ( and ) appear to be located at the same IP address and share a common primary name server as disputed domain name No. 1 (). In addition, all of the sites at the abovementioned disputed domain name advertise that the Respondents can be reached through the same phone number (the “Yahoo Support Australia Phone Number”). According to the Complaint, the disputed domain names Nos. 22 and 23 ( and ) are under common management and control of the same entity as disputed domain names Nos. 1 through 18 on the basis of IP address and name server commonalities.
Thus, the Complainant has shown that disputed domain names Nos. 22 and 23 are connected to disputed domain names Nos.1 to 18.
According to the Complaint, the disputed domain names Nos. 19 to 21 on the above chart not only also exploit the famous YAHOO! trademark with the words “support,” “Australia,” and “Canada,” but their name servers share a common unique host with disputed domain name No. 25 (). Additionally, according to the Complaint, disputed domain names Nos. 19 to 21 were last updated within only approximately a month from when disputed domain name No. 25 was last updated, and some were even created within days of when disputed domain name No. 25 was last updated.
Thus, the Complainant has also shown that disputed domain names Nos. 19 to 21 are connected to disputed domain name No. 25.
According to the Complaint, the disputed domain names Nos. 24 and 25 ( and ) in the above chart were registered using the same irregular “street address” field entries with the “Om Darshan Apt” building. For example, they list the locality “sector-5-rajendra-nagar”, which is just north of the Sahibabad industrial area of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh India. Additionally, this field includes “Sahibabad,” which is more properly entered in the “City/Region” field. Disputed domain names Nos. 24 and 25 share these irregularities with the domain name , which also uses the “Om Darshan Apt” building and was registered using the same email account as the network of Respondents. Therefore, it is likely that disputed domain names Nos. 24 and 25 are under common management and control as the domain name , all of which are likely under common management and control of the network of Respondents.
Finally, disputed domain name No. 1 redirects to the following website: “/yahoo-support-australia.html”. This is connected to disputed domain names Nos. 24 and 25 that share the abovementioned irregularities with the domain name .
It is the view of the Panel that the Complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that all the disputed domains names are under common management and control of the same entity.
While the Complaint elaborates further, the Panel forms a strong presumption in these circumstances that the disputed domain names are all subject to common control on the basis of at least one similarity across the disputed domain names – all the disputed domain names use a mix of the terms “help”, “helpline”, “mail help”, “mail support”, “service”, “support”, “tech help” or “tech service” and the mention of Canada, “AU” or Australia.
This evidence, on its own, strongly points to connections between all of the named Respondents. Other evidence in this case supports the inference that the Respondents are operating for a common purpose. It is apparent that all of the disputed domain names carry a similar meaning – evoking a service related to contact or customer support allegedly offered by or related to the Complainant. All of the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s mark. According to the Complaint, several of the disputed domain names are also set up as mail accounts.
None of these statements made in the Complaint or its evidence has been challenged by the Respondents. Decision on consolidation
In these circumstances, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s statements that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, in that there is a “unity of interests” between the various Respondents. The Complainant has provided detailed evidence related to the disputed domain names and the connections between them, as outlined above. The Respondents have provided no evidence in response to that put forward by the Complainant.
The Panel also finds that the consolidation of these disputes would be fair and equitable. On the Complainant’s evidence, and as described further below, all of the disputed domain names appear to have been registered with a similar purpose in mind. There is a commonality of facts and issues for each disputed domain name. As such, it is more procedurally efficient to proceed with a single decision.
The Panel notes that it is not necessary for it to find that the disputed domain names are registered nominally to a single entity or person. As noted above, the issue is whether the Respondents can be treated as a single domain name holder, because they are involved in a common enterprise, and whether it is procedurally fair and efficient to do so. The definition of the “Respondent” under paragraph 1 of the Rules does not exclude the “holder” of the domain name registrations from being a common enterprise, being carried out by multiple individuals (See Yahoo! Inc. v. Mahesh Rohatgi / Prakhar Rastogi, B / Prakhar Rastogi, Best Web Experts / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP / Prashant Mishra, Vipra Busines Solution / Rina Rohatgi / Wemo Tech Support / Charu Rohatgi / Alina Jain / Raju Hirani, Alfa Infosystem / Brijesh Pandey, IBS Infosystem / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Amit Singh / Satya Prakash / Rajveer Singh Chawla / Pooja Pandey, Innovative Business Solutions,WIPO Case No. D2015-2323).
For these reasons, the Panel agrees to the consolidation of the Complaint in relation to each of the disputed domain names. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered rights in its YAHOO! trademark, which was registered well in advance of the registration of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is wholly incorporated in each of the disputed domain names, with the exception of the exclamation mark which is immaterial for the purposes of comparison under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
All of the disputed domain names also add generic terms which are suggestive of support or help functions, or of geographical locations. As such services are provided by the Complainant, their addition to the disputed domain names, alongside the Complainant’s trademark, may only serve to increase potential confusion.
The Panel accordingly finds that all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the YAHOO! 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 Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. A respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if the respondent was commonly known by the domain name, or if the respondent’s use, prior to notice of the dispute, was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In this case, the Respondents are in default and have therefore provided no evidence that they are commonly known by the disputed domain names.
According to the Complaint, the Respondents were using the disputed domain names for a password recovery and technical support scam operation. The Complaint contains screenshots of the content of some of the disputed domain names convincingly evidencing that fact. The Respondents have not denied these assertions of the Complainant which would be expected from a bona fide service provider, especially in light of the popularity of such scam operations evidenced in the Complaint. Thus there is no evidenced bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain names.
For those disputed domain names which do not resolve to active websites, their absence of use does not, under the circumstances, prevent a finding of a lack of Respondent rights or legitimate interests, in light of the Panel’s findings under the third element.
Consequently, the Panelist concludes that the Respondents have 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
The Panel considers that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith based on the following evidence:
- 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 with that trademark or its owner 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 YAHOO! is a well known trademark. Given that the Complainant has been using the YAHOO! trademark since at least 1994, and that the Complainant’s website is used by Internet users from all around the world, the Respondents are more likely than not to have been aware of the reputation and business activities of the Complainant.
- The Panel also accepts Complainant’s undisputed submission that bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names is further indicated by the fact that there is strong suspicion of the Respondents using the disputed domain names in an elaborate common phishing scam (Twitter, Inc. v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domain Support,WIPO Case No. D2015-1488).
- The Respondents have registered 25 domain names containing a combination of different terms related to technical and online help services in combination with the well-known YAHOO! trademark. Some of the websites at the disputed domain names contain what appears to be an official technical service of the Complainant, including use of the YAHOO! trademark and telephone service lines for different countries. Even if some of the disputed domain names are not being currently used, there appears to be no plausible explanation for their registration. The Panel believes those domain names are being passively held, and when considered in the totality of the circumstances, finds that those disputed domain names are also registered and used in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
- The Respondents have used multiple identities and false and incomplete contact information to conceal their activities, and to continue their fraudulent scheme, even after the protest of the Complainant, which is strong evidence of bad faith use and registration.
- The existence of a disclaimer on some websites cannot by itself cure bad faith, when it has been established by other factors.
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: April 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy