The Complainant is Quikr India Private Limited of Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, represented by Indus Law, India.
The Respondent is Ujjwal, Green Apple Info of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 28, 2016. On December 28, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 29, 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 January 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 25, 2017.
The Center appointed Vinod K. Agarwal as the sole panelist in this matter on January 31, 2017. 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 was originally incorporated in India in the month of November, 2005 by the name of “Kijiji India Private Limited”. In the year 2008, the Complainant changed its name and reregistered the company with the name of “Quikr India Private Limited”. The Complainant has been carrying on continuously its business operations under the trade name “Quikr” since 2008. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for QUIKR, registered in India from 2008.
The Complainant is engaged in the business of classified and online advertising through an online platform at “”. The main business activity of the Complainant is to connect Internet users with buyers and sellers online and aggregate diverse products and services at “”. It generally covers 14 categories of products and services including mobile phones, household goods, furniture, cars, real estate, jobs, services, education and relationships. In the course of business, “” also serves as an advertising platform for service providers.
The Complainant’s offerings are classified in “QuikrC2C” for goods, “QuikrCars” for cars and bikes, “QuikrHomes” for residential and commercial properties, “QuikrJobs” for blue/grey collar jobs, “QuikrDoorsteps” for delivery and supply of products and “QuikrServices” for daily and long term services, and so on.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2015. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously redirected Internet users to a website offering classified services, similar to and in competition with those of the Complainant. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Hence, the Respondent’s activities are not known. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are applicable to this dispute.
In relation to the first element, the Complainant contends that the word “quikr” was adopted by the Complainant in the year 2008 as a part of the corporate name. The trade name and mark QUIKR is inherently distinctive as the same is coined by dropping alphabets from the word “quicker”.
The Complainant has obtained registration of its trademark QUIKR in India, in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42. The Complainant has annexed copies of the Certificate of Registration of the trademark QUIKR with the Complaint. The Complainant has been continuously and consistently using the trade name and trademark QUIKR which is a coined mark possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word. The Complainant possesses another domain name with the word “quikr”, such as .
The Complainant has contended that the addition of the word “bazaar” in the disputed domain name is immaterial. The word “bazaar” is an English word derived from Indian language, that is, Hindi. It means “market” and is descriptive for retail and allied services. In fact, the disputed domain name indicates that the website at the disputed domain name includes the Complainant also. Similarly, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” also does not contribute to the distinctiveness or dissimilarity with the Complainant’s name and mark. Therefore, the disputed domain name is misleading, confusing and creates deception in the members of public and trade.
Thus, the disputed domain name is very much identical or confusingly similar to the name and trademarks of the Complainant.
In relation to the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name is not a descriptive word in which the Respondent may have a genuine interest. The Respondent is making no use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of confusing, misleading and misdirecting the public.
Regarding the third element, the Complainant contends that the main object of registering the disputed domain name by the Respondent is to mislead the general public. The disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent as a redirection to the website “” which is an online portal offering furniture for sale in India. The Complainant’s website “” also has a category dedicated to furniture and home furnishings. Thus, the disputed domain name is being used for disrupting the Complainant’s furniture segment related classified services. Therefore, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to make unlawful gain.
Further that the disputed domain name has also been registered by the Respondent with a mala fide intent to prevent the Complainant from making a legitimate commercial use of the same for offering products and services and with the ulterior motive of forcing the Complainant to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent at a “good price”. The Complainant states that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant during a telephone conversation on December 2, 2016 between the Legal Representative of the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Complainant has further contended that in fact the Respondent is indulging in the business of registering and selling domain names. A search at Google has indicated that more than 100 domain names are registered in the name of the Respondent’s organization “Green Apple Info”. As of now, the disputed domain name is passively held by the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any evidence or argument indicating its relation with the disputed domain name or any trademark right, domain name right or contractual right. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(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
The present case pertains to the disputed domain name . The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark QUIKR in India, as indicated above. Further, the Complainant also owns some domain names containing the word “quikr”. The Respondent has also used the word “quikr” in the disputed domain name. As has been contended by the Complainant, the addition of the word “bazaar” in the disputed domain name is immaterial. The said addition does not have the effect of distinguishing the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark.
The disputed domain name is phonetically, visually and conceptually confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The addition of the word “bazaar” does not affect the confusing similarity. A domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark typically attains confusing similarity with the trademark.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the respondent may demonstrate its rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name by proving any of the following circumstances:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the 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 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 domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent has not filed any response in this case. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has become known by the disputed domain name anywhere in the world. The Respondent is known by the name of “Ujjwal” and “Green Apple Info”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the name and their trademark QUIKR. Further no information is available whether the Respondent has any registration of the mark QUIKR anywhere in the world.
It is evident that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for or use the disputed domain name incorporating the trademark. The use of the word “quikr” creates an impression of an association with the Complainant.
The disputed domain name was previously (before the Respondent was contacted by the Complainant’s representative) used by the Respondent to redirect to a website offering somewhat similar services as are offered by the Complainant. Currently the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Neither of the two amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. Based on the default and the evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy do not exist in this case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration or use of the domain name in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) The respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that it has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) The respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) By using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
The adoption of the disputed domain name fully incorporating the Complainant’s name and trademark clearly shows that the Respondent has in bad faith obtained the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of confusing Internet users as to the source or affiliation of the Respondent’s website.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business competitive to the Complainant and to take away the customers of the Complainant. The Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant states that, on December 2, 2016, the representative of the Complainant made a telephone call to the Respondent asking the Respondent to cease and desist from using the disputed domain name . The Complainant says that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at a very high price. The Complainant has stated in the Complaint that the Respondent told that, “I am into the business of registering and selling domains. You can let me know if your client is interested in buying the domain”. The Complainant contends that a subsequent search revealed that there are more than 100 domains registered in the name of the Respondent’s organization, all were meant for sale.
This and other information submitted by the Complainant leads to the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, namely, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, 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.
Vinod K. Agarwal
Sole Panelist
Date: February 10, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy