The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Imdad Vighio of Hyderabad, Pakistan.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed 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 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 18, 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 April 27, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 18, 2016.
The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 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 OLX B.V., a corporation founded in 2006 and based in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. The Complainant is today one of the world's leading free online classifieds platforms. The Complainant is currently present in over 40 countries and its service is available in 50 languages making the Complainant one of the largest online marketplaces in the world, and the among the leading online marketplaces in several countries, for example in Pakistan, India and Brazil. The Complainant is the owner of the OLX trademark, registered in numerous countries across the world since 2007, including in Pakistan under registration No. 254718, registered on August 19, 2008, where the Respondent resides. Together with its affiliated company OLX Inc., the Complainant has registered over 1,000 domain names incorporating the OLX trademark in several countries across the world.
The Respondent is Imdad Vighio of Hyderabad, Pakistan. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 21, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows: A. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(a) The Complainant is the owner of the OLX trademark, registered in numerous countries across the world, including in Pakistan where the Respondent resides. The dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name comprises the term "OLX" identical to said trademark.
(b) When comparing the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant's trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark.
(c) In creating the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has added the generic, descriptive term "apna" to the Complainant's OLX trademark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. "Apna" is a pronoun in Urdu, the official language of Pakistan, where the Respondent is located and where the Complainant maintains a large market share, and it translates to "ours", "our", "yours", "your" or other similar meaning.
(d) Past UDRP panels addressing use of the OLX trademark have found that the addition of generic words such as "ad", "ads", or "repair", to the full OLX trademark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant's famous mark, and that such domain names are confusingly similar to the OLX trademark. Thus, the Complainant avers, by extension, the same logic must apply in the instant case where the OLX trademark is paired with the prefix "apna". The Complainant refers to previous cases OLX Inc., OLX S.A. v. Privacy Protect/ Raees Ur Rehman,WIPO Case No. D2012-1245; OLX Inc. and OLX S.A. v. Aamir Nehal, Aamir Nehal,WIPO Case No. D2011-2249; OLX Inc. v. Mian Anees − EIT Developer,WIPO Case No. D2013-2132; OLX, Inc. - OLX S.A. v. PrivacyP / Saqib, N/A, Rana Saqib,WIPO Case No. D2013-0473.
(e) The Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name contributes to the confusion. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host an online classifieds website that aims to copy the Complainant's business, which suggests that the Respondent intended the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion. The Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website which hosts an online classifieds website which seeks to copy the Complainant's business and website is further evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Dispute Domain Name.
(a) The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant's trademark in any manner, including in domain names.
(b) The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. The pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as "Imdad Vighio", which does not resemble the Disputed Domain Name in any manner – thus, where no evidence, including the WhoIs record for the Disputed Domain Name, suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, then the Respondent cannot be regarded as having acquired rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
(c) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to operate an online commercial marketplace website, which at first sight appears rather similar to the Complainant's business. Indeed, the Respondent's website uses a similar layout along with similar product categories such as "mobiles", "furniture" and "fashion" and encourages users to post classified advertisement. Moreover, the Respondent has created its own "OLX logotype" copying the color combination of the Complainant's registered OLX logotype, displaying the letters in purple, green and orange. As such, the Disputed Domain Name's website has purposely been designed to serve as a replica of the Complainant's website, all as a means of deceiving Internet users into believing that the Disputed Domain Name and its website are associated with the Complainant.
(d) The Respondent's attempt to pass off the Disputed Domain Name as being affiliated with the Complainant, and perhaps as being the Complainant, is in itself evidence of the fact that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
(e) The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 21, 2015, which is significantly after the Complainant filed for registration of its OLX trademark and also significantly after the Complainant's first use in commerce of its trademark in 2006. C. The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
(a) The OLX trademark, in respect of online classified services provided by the Complainant, has the status of a well-known trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the whole community where it operates. The Complainant has marketed its services using this trademark since 2006, which is well before the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
(b) By registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant's famous OLX trademark in its entirety while adding the term "apna", the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as well as its domain names, for example and .
(c) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to operate an online commercial marketplace website, which at first sight appears rather similar to the Complainant's business and features a similar logotype, layout and product categories as those found on the Complainant's website. In light of the facts set forth above, it is "not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of" the Complainant's brands at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. See Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Stated differently, OLX is so closely linked and associated with the Complainant that the Respondent's use of this mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith – where a domain name is "so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products, … its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith." See Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226.
(d) Further, where the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's famous OLX trademark in its entirety while adding the term "apna", "it defies common sense to believe that Respondent coincidentally selected the precise domain without any knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks." See Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1415.
(e) The Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark by using a confusingly similar domain name comprised of the Complainant's OLX trademark. Also, the Respondent seeks to profit from such confusion by using the Disputed Domain Name's website to host an online classifieds marketplace which seeks to copy the Complainant's business. The impression given by the Disputed Domain Name and its website would cause consumers to believe the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. It is well established that such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
(f) The Complainant's classified advertisement websites under the OLX brand are attracting a high number of visitors, for example; "" has a rank of 23 on the Alexa Traffic Rank in India, and 362 worldwide, the "www..pk" website has a rank of 29 on the Alexa Traffic Rank in Pakistan, and 2,693 worldwide, the Complainant's Brazilian website, "", is attracting a large amount of visitors, with a rank of 34 on the Alexa Traffic Rank in Brazil, and 1,334 worldwide, clearly showing a very high level of popularity in these jurisdictions. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the Respondent is taking a free ride on the Complainant's fame and popularity in order to direct traffic to its own commercial website. By using the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent exploits the goodwill and fame the Complainant has acquired in its trademark and may result in dilution and other damage to the Complainant's trademark.
The Respondent has ignored the Complainant's attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. The Complainant first tried to contact the Respondent on February 1, 2016, through a cease and desist letter sent by email. The Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of the OLX trademark in the Disputed Domain Name violated the Complainant's rights in said trademark. The Complainant requested a voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Despite additional letters being sent no response was ever received.
The totality of the circumstances and facts dictate that the Respondent must be considered as possessing actual knowledge of the Complainant's brand, business, and registered trademark at the point of the registration and thereafter. Indeed, OLX is a well-known trademark in all of its markets. There is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant; there is no disclaimer on the website explaining the non-existent relationship. By using the Disputed Domain Name for its own commercial purposes, the Respondent is not making a legitimate or fair use, but is misleadingly diverting consumers for commercial gain. In other words, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of said website, as stated in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the OLX trademark based on its trademark registrations obtained since 2007. The Disputed Domain Name comprises of a prefix "apna" and "olx". The Panel accepts that "apna" has a generic meaning in Urdu.
As for the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", it is well established that in making an inquiry as to whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the gTLD may be disregarded. See Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-0762.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's OLX trademarks and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As stated in paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Respondent is not known by "apnaolx" or "olx". Whilst the Respondent operates a website with a logo bearing the phrase "APNA OLX", the Respondent appears to be trying to pass off its website as being operated by the Complainant, which cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case here. It is therefore for the Respondent to show that this is not the case.
The Respondent has not filed a response.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in December 2015, nearly ten years after the Complainant's first use of the OLX trademark.
Taking into account the timing of the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the services offered on the website at the Disputed Domain Name, and the similarity between the design of the Respondent's website and the Complainant's websites (its website at "www..pk" in particular), the Panel takes the view that the Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant and the Complainant's websites at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. For the same reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intention of using it to operate a website that would mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent's website is operated by the Complainant, thereby disrupting the business of the Complainant and/or attracting Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain.
The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been 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 Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2016
1 The Panel notes the WhoIs information lists the Respondent as located in "Hyderaabd". This likely being a typographical error, the Panel has noted the Respondent as being located in Hyderabad, Pakistan, for the purposes of this decision.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy