The Complainant is Facebook, Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America (“US”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is A Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Australia / Protection Domain of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , and are registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 6, 2018. On April 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . On April 10, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 13, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 18, 2018, adding the disputed domain names , , and . On April 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names , , and . On April 30, 2018, 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 together with the amended 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 May 1, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2018.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2018. 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 a provider of online social networking services under the trademark FACEBOOK. Founded in 2004, Facebook allows Internet users to stay connected with friends and family, and to share information mainly via its website. Access to FACEBOOK was originally restricted to students at Harvard University, but quickly expanded to other universities and, in 2006, to anyone in the world with a valid email address. Since its launch in 2004, FACEBOOK rapidly developed considerable renown and goodwill worldwide, with 1 million active users by the end of 2004, 100 million users in August 2008, 500 million users in July 2010 and 1 billion users worldwide by September 2012.
Today, FACEBOOK has approximately 2.13 billion monthly active users and 1.4 billion daily active users on average worldwide (as of December 2017). Its main website, “” is currently ranked as the 3rd most visited website in the world according to information company Alexa. With approximately 84.5 percent of its daily active users outside the US and Canada, Facebook’s social networking services are provided in more than 70 languages. In addition, Facebook is also available for mobile devices, and in recent years has consistently ranked amongst the top “apps” in the market.
Details of extensive protection of its FACEBOOK trademark in many countries, including Australian Registration No. 1100642 (registered on February 23, 2006), European Union trademark (EUTM) Registration No. 005585518 (registered on May 25, 2011) and International Registration No. 1075094 (registered on July 16, 2010), have been submitted by the Complainant.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 22, 2014.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 23, 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 4, 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2015 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that all four disputed domain names in this case are confusingly similar to its FACEBOOK trademark.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, in particular that the Respondent has not received any permission to use its FACEBOOK trademark and that the Respondent cannot assert that, prior to any notice of this dispute, it was using, or had made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The disputed domain names , and redirect to dynamic advertising websites from which the Respondent or a third party is clearly obtaining some form of financial gain, and the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with sponsored links targeting the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark. Such uses cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Respondent is seeking to unduly profit from the Complainant’s goodwill and renown to attract Internet users to its website for financial gain. The Complainant further states that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, and that the abovementioned use amounts to bad faith use of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(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
It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g., “.com”, “.org”, and “.net”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with this view, and considers the “.com” gTLD indicator to be irrelevant in the present case.
In connection with the disputed domain name , it is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the mere addition of a descriptive or non-distinctive element to a complainant’s trademark is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a complainant’s trademark and a disputed domain name. This disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the letter “m” preceding the FACEBOOK trademark. The Panel takes the view that the addition of a single letter before a complainant’s trademark, which does not materially affect the perception of the trademark, is the addition of a descriptive or non distinctive element, and, accordingly, finds that this disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
In connection with the disputed domain name , the Panel considers that the added element “jobs” is clearly and self-evidently the addition of a descriptive or non distinctive element, and finds that this disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
In connection with the disputed domain name , the difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is the substitution of the letter “c” with the letter “z”. This would not, in the Panel’s opinion, materially affect the pronunciation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the overall impression of the Complainant’s trademark remains in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that this disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
In connection with the disputed domain name , the difference is the doubling of the initial letter “f”. This, in itself, would not, in the Panel’s opinion, materially affect the pronunciation of the Complainant’s trademark. The letter “e” of the Complainant’s trademark has been removed, which, in the Panel’s opinion, would materially affect the pronunciation of the Complainant’s trademark, but not sufficiently to avoid the Complainant’s trademark shining through the disguise, and the overall impression of the Complainant’s trademark remains. The Panel, accordingly, finds that this disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in connection with all four disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel regards the submissions put forward by the Complainant (set out in section 5.A. above) as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names to rebut this prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. In the circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel believes that the Respondent has clearly had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when constructing the disputed domain names, the Panel regards it as appropriate to find that the four disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, and so finds.
The disputed domain names , and redirect to dynamic advertising websites from which the Respondent or a third party is clearly obtaining some form of financial gain, and the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with sponsored links targeting the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark. All these instances of use, in the Panel’s opinion, constitute use in bad faith, compounded by the fame which the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark currently enjoys, as a result of which users would be likely to believe that they are in contact with websites either operated by the Complainant, or sponsored or approved by it, to the potential detriment of the Complainant. Moreover, by registering multiple domain names targeting the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent engaged in a bad faith pattern of domain name registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds use in bad faith in connection with all four disputed domain names. 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 names, , , , and , be transferred to the Complainant.
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy