1.1 The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
1.2 The Respondent is Jakony Amnon, OLX Uganda of Kampala, Uganda. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with D, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 14, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 15, 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 received an email communication from the Respondent on April 20, 2016.
3.2 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").
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 1, 2016. On April 25, 2016, the Complainant filed a suspension request and the proceeding was suspended on April 26, 2016. At the request of the Complainant, the proceeding was reinstituted on May 17, 2016. On the same date, the Respondent sent a second email communication with the Center. After reinstitution, the due date for Response was recalculated to June 1, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on June 2, 2016.
3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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
4.1 The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp in the Netherlands and is the owner of the OLX trademark, registered as early as in 2007. The Complainant is said to operate online classified sites that enable users to buy and sell goods including vehicles, real estate, tickets, and electronics; solicit and offer services, such as babysitting, event services and repairs; design ads to post on the Complainant's website; display ads on profiles across social networking sites such as Facebook; and search for jobs across numerous locations and industries. The Complainant is said to have registered well over 1,000 domain names incorporating the OLX trademark in several countries across the world, including ; and , targeting the Complainant's customers in Uganda where the Respondent is based. The Complainant is said to be founded in the year 2006. The Complainant's platform is said to have well over 200 million monthly unique users generating traffic of over 11 billion monthly page views, or around 360 million page views per day, and was launched in Uganda in the year 2014.
4.2 In previous UDRP decisions the fame of the Complainant's OLX trademark has been well established. See, e.g., OLX, Inc. v. JD Mason Singh,WIPO Case No. D2014-1037. Thus, it is said that the OLX trademark has acquired distinctiveness and the OLX brand and mark is well-recognized by consumers, industry peers and the broader global community in all of its markets.
4.3 The Respondent, who is based in Uganda according to the WhoIs extract, is stated to have created the Disputed Domain Name on November 9, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's OLX trademark as the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name contains the OLX mark. The Complainant contends further that when comparing the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant's mark, the comparison to be made is between the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark. Therefore, adding a top-level domain such as ".net" or ".com" to the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. In addition, the Complainant alludes to the addition of the generic descriptive term "market" to the Disputed Domain Name and asserts that this addition only goes to further increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark, considering that such term is closely linked and associated with the Complainant's brand and trademark. In support, the Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions, where it was held that a disputed domain name which consists merely of a complainant's trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes the complainant's business is confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark. The Complainant also refers to the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website, which hosts an online classifieds website that seeks to imitate the Complainant's website, as further evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. In this regard, the Complainant refers to the finding in The Gaming Board for Great Britain v. Gaming Board,WIPO Case No. D2004-0739.
5.2 The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name since inter alia, the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant, and neither has the Complainant given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant's trademarks in any manner, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant therefore argues that the Respondent's attempt to pass off the Disputed Domain Name as being affiliated with the Complainant is in itself evidence of the fact that the Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and neither is it a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use following paragraphs 4(a)(ii), 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. See Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0598.
5.3 On the question of bad faith use and registration the Complainant contends as follows. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and brands at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. In this regard, it is stated that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on November 9, 2015, which is a date significantly after the Complainant filed for registration of its OLX trademark and also after the Complainant's first use in commerce of its trademark. Another point advanced in this regard is that, where the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's famous trademark in its entirety while adding the generic term "market", it defies common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected the precise domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. See, in this regard, Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1415. Secondly, it is submitted that the Respondent's actions create a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent is thereby using the fame of the Complainant's trademarks to improperly increase traffic to the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves for the Respondent's commercial gain; such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use. See World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles,WIPO Case No. D2000-1306. Thirdly, the Complainant's classified advertisement websites under the OLX brand is said to attract a high amount of visitors. For instance, has a rank of 56 on the Alexa Traffic Rank in India and 535 worldwide. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the Respondent is targeting the fame and popularity of the Complainant's mark in order to direct Internet traffic to its own commercial website for pecuniary gain. Accordingly, such usage is said to be capable of diluting and damaging the Complainant's trademark. Fourthly, after the receipt of cease and desist letters on December 7 and 14, 2015, the Respondent failed to make the necessary arrangements for transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant despite agreeing to do so.. B. Respondent
5.4 On April 20, 2016, the Center received an email from the Respondent that read in its entirety, "All ready here". On May 17, 2016, in response to the Complainant's request to reinstate the administrative proceeding following suspension, the Center received another email that read in its entirety, "Email version is better". Thereafter, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 14(a) and (b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent's failure to reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this administrative proceeding the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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.
6.2 As expressly stated in the Policy, the Complainant must establish each of these three elements to succeed under the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-established trademark. Essentially, the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark and the addition of the generic descriptive term "market" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does absolutely nothing to preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See, in this regard, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615, on the principle that it is sufficient to establish the requirement of confusing similarity under the Policy where a disputed domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's trademark. The Panel further accepts the Complainant's contention that the addition of the generic term "market" to the Disputed Domain Name further adds to the confusing similarity, the descriptive or generic term being a word closely related to the business of the Complainant.
6.4 The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.5 The Panel also finds that the Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the ambit of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. As the Complainant contends, the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to utilize the Complainant's trademark or to register the Disputed Domain Name. There is equally no evidence that the Respondent has ever been affiliated or associated with the Complainant. On the contrary, the Complainant has adduced credible evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host an online classifieds website that imitates the Complainant's business and website and features a modified version of the Complainant's OLX logo prominently at the top of the website's homepage without any disclosure of the lack of relationship with the Complainant. The Panel finds such conduct cannot be described as a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name as stipulated in the decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. See further, in support, Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al., supra.
6.6 Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as stipulated in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.7 On the question of bad faith registration and use, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and continued to engage in bad faith use. The Panel has identified a number of irrefutable factors that clearly support such a finding. Firstly, it is abundantly clear to the Panel that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to exploit for financial gain the worldwide fame of the Complainant's OLX brand and trademark. The Panel observes that the fame of the Complainant's OLX trademark has been recognized and established in recent UDRP decisions. See, for instance, OLX, Inc. v. JD Mason Singh, supra. On the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the Respondent decided to create the Disputed Domain Name on November 9, 2015, a date well after the Complainant's establishment of business in the year 2006 and well after the registration of the Complainant's OLX mark. As the Complainant argues, this is likely not a mere coincidence. Secondly, the Respondent has clearly been using the Disputed Domain Name to create a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name as the Respondent is using the fame of the Complainant's trademarks to improperly increase traffic to the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves for commercial gain. See World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, supra. Thirdly, the Respondent's website displays a modified version of the Complainant's OLX logo prominently at the top of the website and in the same colour, which evinces a clear intention to imitate the Complainant's website, brand and trademark for commercial gain. Fourthly, the Respondent failed to make the agreed necessary arrangements for the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant despite receiving two cease and desist letters on diverse dates. Fifthly, the Panel has drawn adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to rebut the evidence and contentions of the Complainant in this matter.
6.8 The Panel is therefore equally satisfied that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 7. Decision
7.1 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.
Ike Ehiribe
Sole Panelist
Date: June 29, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy