The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Muhammad Amjad Shaheen of Phalia, Punjab, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2017. On January 24, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 25, 2017, 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 February 1, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 21, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 22, 2017.
The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 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 is 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.
The trademark OLX is short for “online exchange”. The Complainant operates online classifieds sites that enable users to buy and sell goods.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for OLX, which have been registered in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including European Union Trade Mark registration number 010881456, OLX, registered on September 25, 2012. Together with its affiliated company OLX Inc., the Complainant has also registered over 1000 domain names incorporating the OLX trademark.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 2, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to an online commercial marketplace, with a similar look and feel to the websites of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its OLX trademark. The addition to the word “international” does not suffice to avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s OLX trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance legitimate interests. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name including its trademark.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the element “olx”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark OLX.
It is clear that the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the OLX trademark to which the dictionary word “international” has been added.
The word “international” in the context of business implies global or at least international operations. In any event, the addition of “international” does not dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name, which contains OLX as the first and dominant part of the domain name, and the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark OLX.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has, therefore, been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark.
The Respondent has not demonstrated that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that there is no relationship with the Respondent that gives rise to any license, permission, or other right to which the Respondent could enjoy such use of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s OLX trademark.
The Complainant has provided evidence that the website associated with the disputed domain name is used in an attempt to pass itself off as being an official website of the Complainant, for the commercial gain of the Respondent. The Panel finds that this does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
The Complainant has showed that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as Complainant’s domain names, for example and .
The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On the record, the Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
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 layout
and product categories as those found on the Complainant’s website.
The Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, is intentionally misleading consumers and confusing them by hosting an online classified marketplace which seeks to copy the Complainant’s business. The Panel notes in this regard that the Respondent has made prominent use of the Complainant’s OLX trademark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
Moreover, the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist sent by the Complainant or its contentions in the Complaint is considered relevant in the finding of bad faith (News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia,WIPO Case No. 2000-1623).
On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
On this basis, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third element of the Policy (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). 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.
Eva Fiammenghi
Sole Panelist
Date: March 13, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy