The Complainants are The Carphone Warehouse Limited and The Carphone Warehouse Europe Limited, of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Fieldfisher LLP, UK.
The Respondent is Maria, Phone House Ltd of Punjab, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Cloud Group Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2016. On July 15, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 27, 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 proceedings commenced on August 16, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 5, 2016. The Notification of Respondent Default was issued by the Center on Sept 6, 2016.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 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 Complainants are British mobile phone retailers, with over 2400 stores across Europe.
The Complainants own several trademarks PHONE HOUSE, e.g. registration in the UK with registration number 00002147317 registered on December 8, 2000 and registration in the European Union with number 001974914 registered on January 31, 2003.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 3, 2016. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants have documented trademark registrations in the Complaint, and argue that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to their trademarks.
The Complainants point out that the Domain Name was registered on May 3, 2016, meaning the Respondent can only have been trading through the use of the Domain Name for two months, which is an insufficient length of time to generate any goodwill or reputation in the Domain Name with its customers.
Moreover, the words ‘‘phone house” are not words syntactically used together in the English language. On the contrary, the words are a syntactical juxtaposition made up by the Complainants so as to distinguish its business in the market.
The Complainants argue that the Respondent is using the Domain Name for the same purpose as the Complainants, namely the advertisement and sale of mobile phone handsets, mobile phone service contracts and mobile phone SIM cards. Such use is intended to direct customers away from the Complainants’ website. Therefore, the Domain Name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainants own goodwill in PHONE HOUSE with mobile phone consumers associating this expression with the Complainants. The Respondent’s use is intended to take advantage of this goodwill and reputation by creating an association or commercial link between the Complainants and the Respondent. The sole purpose of this is to redirect customers from the Complainants to the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established that they have rights in the trademark PHONE HOUSE.
The test for the first element involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the Complainants’ trademark, with the abbreviation “ltd” added to it. The addition of “ltd” adds to the confusion rather than reducing the risk of confusion. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that the Respondent has been using the Domain Name or the name Phone House in a way that would give her rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainants have not granted any authorization to the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and the Complainant’s prima facie case has not been rebutted. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent is using the Domain Name for the same purpose as the Complainants, namely the advertisement and sale of mobile phone handsets, mobile phone service contracts and mobile phone SIM cards. The Respondent is likely to have had knowledge of the Complainants at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The Panel finds registration in bad faith.
The Panel also finds use of the Domain Name in bad faith. The sale of the same products as the Complainants indicates that the Respondent takes advantage of this goodwill and reputation by creating an association or commercial link between the parties, in order to redirect customers from the Complainants to the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 name be transferred to one of the Complainants.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy