The Complainant is Telstra Corporation Limited of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, represented by Crowell & Moring, LLP, Belgium.
The Respondent is Omrite Pty Ltd of Balgowlah, New South Wales, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 5, 2016. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 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 October 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was November 7, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 8, 2016. On November 8, November 30 and December 1, 2016, the Center received communications from the Respondent's contact email address.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on November 29, 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 Australia's largest telecommunications company and Australia's leading provider of mobile phones, mobile devices, home phones and broadband Internet services. The Complainant owns multiple registrations of the trademark TELSTRA, including Australian trademark registration number 579922, registered from June 5, 1992, specifying goods in class 9; and International trademark registration number 1176338, registered from February 1, 2013, designating jurisdictions including Australia, and specifying goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 41 and 42. Both registrations remain current. The Complainant operates official websites at "" and ".au" where it provides information about its products.
The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2015 and its expiry date is January 20, 2017. According to the Registrar's WhoIs database, the registrant's contact telephone number is a mobile phone number with the prefix "0418". That prefix is assigned to Telstra. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page which displays the disputed domain name together with the message "Domain name is registered and secured with CrazyD". At the landing page the Registrar offers domain, hosting and other services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's TELSTRA trademark. The Complainant has used that trademark since 1992. The addition of a Top-Level Domain suffix ("TLD") can be disregarded when comparing a domain name and a trademark under the Policy.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights and the Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name was not authorized by the Complainant. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a landing page of the Registrar which is not a legitimate or fair use under the Policy.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. At the time that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, it must have known of the Complainant and its TELSTRA trademark because that trademark is well-known all over the world and especially in Australia; the TELSTRA trademark has no generic or descriptive meaning; and a simple trademark or Internet search would have revealed the existence of the TELSTRA trademark. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a landing page of the Registrar but it is impossible to imagine any plausible legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, especially in view of the well-known character of the Complainant's trademark. B. Respondent
The emails sent from the disputed domain name registrant contact email address to the Center stated that the sender did not own the disputed domain name. The email sent on November 30, 2016, asserted that the Registrar had confirmed to the sender that she was not the owner of the disputed domain name and further asserted that the disputed domain name "expired in January 2016". That email and the email sent on December 1, 2016 stated that the sender had never been contacted before in any way regarding this matter. These emails did not address the Complainant's contentions in any other respect. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following 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 in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the TELSTRA trademark.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's TELSTRA trademark as its initial and dominant element.
The only additional element is ".social" which is a TLD suffix. A TLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a comparison under the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,WIPO Case No. D2014-0080. In this case, the Panel does not consider that the particular TLD suffix ".social" distinguishes the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark. If anything, that suffix increases the confusing similarity because it could be understood to refer to the Complainant's social media platforms.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent's] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's TELSTRA trademark. The Complainant submits that it has not authorized the Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been parked at a landing page that offers domain and hosting services on a commercial basis. The Respondent has evidently allowed the Registrar free reign over content. That does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services that would create a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267. Nor does this offering of domain and hosting services evidence some legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Respondent's name is "Omrite Pty Ltd" not "" or "telstra". There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as envisaged by the second circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Based on the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to rebut that case because it did not assert any rights or legitimate interests.
Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These circumstances are not exhaustive. The fourth circumstance is as follows:
"(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location."
The disputed domain name was registered in 2015, years after the Complainant registered its TELSTRA trademark in Australia, where the Respondent is located. The disputed domain name, but for the TLD suffix, is identical to the Complainant's TELSTRA trademark. "Telstra" is an invented word with no dictionary meaning. The TELSTRA trademark is well-known in Australia due to the Complainant's very extensive use of it over many years in connection with telecommunications. The disputed domain name registrant's contact telephone number has a Telstra prefix. In view of all these circumstances, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the TELSTRA trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
With respect to use, the disputed domain name has been parked at an active website from which the Registrar offers services on a commercial basis. The disputed domain name operates by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the landing page. This use was intentional and for the commercial gain of the Registrar as the operator of the landing page, even if not for the commercial gain of the Respondent. In any event, these facts satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, supra.
The sender of the emails from the disputed domain name registrant's email contact address denies owning the disputed domain name. This does not alter the Panel's conclusions because the Registrar has confirmed that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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 the Complainant.
Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy