The Complainant is Genpact Luxembourg S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Vishal Sharma of Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2016. On March 17, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 18 and 21, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 21, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on the same day.
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 proceeding commenced on March 30, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 21, 2016.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 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 owns trade mark registrations for the GENPACT mark in the United States and India in relation to its business process and technology management services. Its mark was first used in 2005.
The Domain Name registered in 2015 has been used for services competing, but unconnected with the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is a global leader in business process and technology management. It owns multiple trade mark registrations for the GENPACT mark in the United States and India where the Respondent is based in relation to the Complainant’s services which was first used in 2005. It has a web site at “”.
The Domain Name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known and fanciful GENPACT trade mark incorporating it in full, adding only the generic words “career” and “solutions” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” which is not taken into account for the purposes of the Policy.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It is not commonly known by the Domain Name, has not used or prepared to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has not been authorised by the Complainant and registered the Domain Name to perpetuate a fraud on the public. The web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing services to that which the Complainant offers which cannot be bona fide use.
The Domain Name has been registered for the clear purpose of passing off, trading on and misappropriating the significant goodwill the Complainant has built in its GENPACT mark.
The Respondent has engaged in registration of a domain name that creates an extremely high likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source or affiliation of the Respondent’s web site to confuse consumers and potential job applicants regarding the source of the Respondent’s web site, to disrupt the Complainant’s business and/or to ultimately collect personal information from individuals seeking information about the Complainant. Further, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to convert traffic to a commercial web site is one of four explicit examples of bad faith under the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Apart from the “.com” suffix which is generally not taken into account for the purposes of the Policy, the Domain Name consist of the Complainant’s GENPACT registered mark and the generic terms “career” and “solutions”. The addition of the generic terms “career” and “solutions” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, but indeed compounds the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark because the Complainant provides services related to such fields. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade marks GENPACT and as such the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not filed a Response (i.e., it has not shown any circumstances under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) which may apply in its favour) and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has indicated that it has not endorsed the Respondent in any way and the Respondent’s business has no obvious connection with the designation “genpact”. As such, and bearing in mind the findings below regarding the use of the Domain Name in relation to competing services, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including:
“by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on [its] web site or location.” (paragraph 4(b)(iv)).
The Domain Name has been used to link to a commercial site competing with the Complainant’s business. It was not at all clear from the site attached to the Domain Name whether the site was connected with the Complainant and its GENPACT mark or not. Accordingly, it appears that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site or products or services on its web site. The Panel, therefore, finds that bad faith has been demonstrated under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. It is, therefore, unnecessary to assess the additional contention of the Complainant that the Respondent’s may also have intended to collect information from consumers seeking the services of the Complainant. 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy