The Complainant is Plentyoffish Media ULC of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, represented by Locke Lord LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Adefemi Sobalaje of Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 3, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 6, 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 March 9, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 30, 2017.
The Center appointed Desmond J. Ryan as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 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 disputed domain name was created on March 28, 2015.
The Complainant is a Canadian corporation based in Vancouver, Canada which operates an online dating service at its website at "" which it registered on February 21, 2000 and at which it has operated since at least May 31, 2001. The Complainant owns registrations of the trade mark PLENTYOFFISH in international classes 38 and 45 dating from June, 12 2007 and POF also registered in international classes 38 and 45 dating from the same date.
The Complainant has produced evidence showing that the landing page at the disputed domain name substantially replicates the look and feel of the Complainant's landing page at its "" website. Attempts by the Complainant to access the website at the disputed domain name through Google Chrome resulted in a message stating that the disputed domain name is unsafe, that there is a deceptive site ahead, that attackers on "www." may trick you into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing your personal information and that "Google Safe Browsing" recently detected phishing on "www.". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant's contentions may be summarized as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's PLENTYOFFISH and POF trade marks. The disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant's POF trade mark and neither the addition of the top level domain indicator ".com" nor the word "date" serve in any way to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade marks. Further the addition of the word "date" serves to reinforce the likelihood that consumers would associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant and the services which it provides.
(b) The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant's POF and PLENTYOFFISH trade marks.
(c) There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
(d) The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not a noncommercial or fair use.
(e) The Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name in the bona fide offering of goods or services; rather it is a fraudulent use which attempts to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating confusion as to the identity of the website and an affiliation with the Complainant. Further, warnings provided by Google indicate that the true purpose of the website at the disputed domain name is to lure Internet users into following links at the website which may lead to the installation of malware or the harvesting of data from the user's confidential information.
(f) The inclusion of the word "date" in the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent's intention to associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant's online dating service. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trade marks POF and PLENTYOFFISH by virtue of its registrations of those trade marks at the United States Patents and Trademark Office in respect of services which include online dating services. The disputed domain name wholly includes the Complainant's POF trade mark. It is well established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain, ".com", does not usually serve to distinguish a domain name from a corresponding trade mark (see paragraph 1.2, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0")). The addition of the letter "s" after the Complainant's trade mark POF also does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark, as for the addition of the word "date", having regard to the services in respect of which the Complainant uses its trade mark such addition can only serve to increase the probability that the disputed domain name would be confused with the Complainant's mark (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.5). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent and that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its POF and PLENTYOFFISH trade marks. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The use which the Respondent is making of the disputed domain name appears clearly to be a commercial use but it is not a use in the bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary it appears from the evidence produced by the Complainant that it is likely the disputed domain name is being used for fraudulent purposes. There is no apparent basis upon which the Respondent might claim a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent had an opportunity to rebut the Complainant's contentions but it has failed to do so.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or a legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant's evidence shows that it has been operating an online dating service for at least 10 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The wordstring "pofsdate" has no ordinary or generic significance and it is hard to imagine any reason why the Respondent should choose that wordstring for the disputed domain name otherwise than to seek to attract Internet to its website users familiar with the Complainant's use of the trade mark POF in relation to its well established online dating service.
The use which the Respondent has subsequently made of the disputed domain name appears from the evidence to be clearly designed to create confusion with the Complainant and to create in the mind of Internet users an association between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. Further, it appears from the Complainant's evidence, particularly that relating to the Google notices, that the use of the disputed domain name may go beyond the creation of mere commercial confusion and serve to facilitate acts which are potentially damaging to the Internet users and to the reputation of the Complainant.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and has subsequently been used in bad faith. 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.
Desmond J. Ryan AM
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy