1.1 The Complainant is Crista Ministries d/b/a World Concern of Seattle, Washington, United States of America ("US"), represented by DWC Law Firm, US.
1.2 The Respondent is World Concern of Nairobi, Kenya. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name is registered with L Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 10, 2017. On May 11, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 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.
3.2 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").
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 22, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 11, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 12, 2017.
3.4 The Center appointed David Perkins as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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
4.1 Complainant is a public benefit corporation and a registered charity. It is located in Seattle, US. It has been providing international relief under the name "World Concern" to those in need since 1973. Its activities include providing disaster relief, food, clothing, construction supplies, agricultural supplies, shelter and medicine to people in extreme poverty in Africa, Asia and Central America.
4.2 Complainant is the proprietor of the following registered trade and service marks for WORLD CONCERN:
Country
Registration No
Mark
Classes of goods / service
Application/ Registration
US
1,080,008
WORLD CONCERN
36, 41 and 42
Filed: May 10, 1976
Registered: December 20, 1977
US
1,262,385
WORLD CONCERN
16
Filed: September 30, 1982
Registered: December 27, 1983
4.3 Complainant is the owner of the domain name, which was created on August 20, 1996. Exhibited to the Complaint is an archive snapshot from Complainant's website at that domain name dated December 20, 1996. Complainant says that its charitable activities have been publicised at that website for more than 20 years.
4.4 In the absence of a Response, what is known of Respondent comes from the Complaint and its attachments.
4.5 The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2017.
4.6 Exhibited to the Complaint is an extract from Respondent's website which resolves from the disputed domain name. At that website Respondent describes itself as "international humanitarian organisation dedicated to tackling poverty and suffering in the world's poorest countries." 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 As noted in paragraph 4.2 above, Complainant is the proprietor of the registered trade mark and service mark WORLD CONCERN.
5.A.2 The disputed domain name is identical but for the hyphen between the words "world" and "concern." Rights and Legitimate Interests
5.A.3 Complainant states that it has not authorised Respondent to use the WORLD CONCERN trade mark.
5.A.4 Complainant's case is that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of services, that Respondent has never been commonly known by that domain name and that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. In other words, Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
5.A.5 In support of the foregoing, Complainant points to the following. First, on pages 3-8 of the extract from its website – referred to in paragraph 4.6 above – Respondent advertises purported career opportunities and, Complainant says, then attempts to collect money from job applicants, which is something Complainant says it never does. Second, the address in New York given on Respondent's website does not exist. As evidence of that, Complaint exhibits a print out of its search for that address on Google Maps. Third, as evidence of actual confusion and of Respondent requiring money from job applicants, exhibited to the Complaint is an email (redacted for privacy concerns) from a job applicant sent to both Complainant and Respondent in response to an email from Respondent. In material part the email reads:
"I had received feedback from the job application I had applied earlier this week, my main concern is can you please clarify on your existence of having two different websites. Is this legit? Are you one company or different? Along the application instructions you have required me to do ICPTS assessment where I have to send 115$ through safaricom to Kenya I would say it really sounds inappropriate given the circumstances above."
5.A.6 The registrant address for the disputed domain name in the publicly available WhoIs information is Nairobi, Kenya. Exhibited to the Complaint is a signed declaration from Complainant's Senior Director of Finance & Compliance confirming that the above extract is from an email received by Complainant.
5.A.7 Fourth, Complainant says that Respondent's website contains content copied from the websites of other charitable organisations, including Relief International and the American Red Cross. To illustrate this Complaint exhibits texts from the websites of both organisations comparing them with wording from Respondent's website. Fifth, Complainant says that Respondent's logo used on its website copies the contours of Complainant's logo which it has used since 2011 and which is also a US trademark. That logo trade mark (US Registered Trade Mark No. 4,419,134) was registered on October 15, 2013. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
5.A.8 Complainant's case is that the above circumstances clearly demonstrate evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
5.B.1 As noted above, there has been no response by Respondent. 6. Discussion and Findings.
6.1 The Policy, paragraph 4(a) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
6.3 The Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 From paragraph 4.2 above, Complainant has rights in the WORLD CONCERN trade mark. The disputed domain name is identical to that mark. The use of a hyphen between the words "world" and "concern" in the disputed domain name is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Complaint satisfies the two requirements of that paragraph. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.6 It is plain from Complainant's case made out in paragraphs 5.A.3 to 5 above that Respondent could not demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Indeed, from the evidence summarised in paragraph 5.A.5, there is every indication that Respondent's activities under the recently registered disputed domain name are illegitimate. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies the second element of the Policy, paragraph 4(a). Registered and used in Bad Faith
6.7 Again, on the basis of the evidence summarised in paragraph 5.A.5 above, Complainant's case under paragraph 4(b)(iv) is well made out. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision.
7.1 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.
David Perkins
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy