Complainant is Mirabaud & Cie SA of Geneva, Switzerland, represented by Tavernier Tschanz, Switzerland.
Respondent is Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Shinjiru MSC Sdn Bhd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2016. On July 21, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 Complainant on July 25, 2016, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 29, 2016.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2016. On August 15, 2016, Respondent transmitted by email to the Center a request for Name Redaction. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2016. Respondent submitted a response on August 30, 2016.
The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 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
Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of rights in the trademark MIRABAUD and various MIRABAUD-formative trademarks, including by registration at a number of trademark offices, such as (by way of illustration) the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, registration number P-503679, in international classes 35 and 36, registration dated October 2, 2002, covering management of business, and financial and monetary affairs.
According to the Registrar’s verification, a commercial enterprise is registrant of the disputed domain name, with registration dated April 17, 2016. That named Respondent has provided substantial evidence that it did not, in fact, register the disputed domain name.
Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has been used as part of an email address by an unknown third-party to give the impression that the subject email is sent from Complainant. That deceptive email address has been used as the basis for undertaking fraudulent commercial activities that have threatened to harm the interests of Complainant. 5. Discussion and Findings
The Panel is satisfied that the named Respondent in this proceeding, a well-established commercial enterprise, was not party to registration of the disputed domain name, and that registration of the disputed domain name was secured fraudulently (i.e., through knowing misuse by a third-party of Respondent’s identity). The Registrar has advised that the second Respondent, Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyP, is not the registrant of the disputed domain name. Registration of the disputed domain name was undertaken by a third-party by fraudulent means, and the named commercial enterprise Respondent appearing in the WhoIs record disclaims any knowledge of or interest in the disputed domain name.
The Panel does not consider it appropriate or necessary to take into account the interests of the third-party that undertook the registration under false pretenses. The Panel therefore renders this Decision in summary form, taking into account that Complainant has provided evidence to support its rights in the MIRABAUD trademark, and that both Complainant and Respondent are agreeable to a summary resolution of this matter.
On the basis of the evidence presented in the Complaint, and taking into account the evidence provided by the named enterprise Respondent, the Panel determines that (1) Complainant has rights in the trademark MIRABAUD, (2) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark, (3) Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (4) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 6. 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 Complainant.
For purposes of properly executing this order, the Panel also directs the Registrar’s attention to Annex 1 hereto that identifies the commercial enterprise listed as registrant of the disputed domain name in the formal record of registration, and orders that the disputed domain name, , be transferred from that commercial enterprise to Complainant.
The Panel directs the Center that Annex 1 shall not be published along with this Decision.
Frederick M. Abbott
Sole Panelist
Date: September 13, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy