Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Rob Monster of Bellevue, Washington, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Epik, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 6, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 6, 2018.
The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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
According to WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on April 13, 2011.
In 2009 Andrey Ternovskiy (“Complainant”) created Chatroulette; an online video chat service and online video social introduction and networking service that pairs people from around the world together for real-time, webcam based conversations.
Complainant registered his domain name on November 16, 2009 and established his Chatroulette service and website very shortly thereafter.
Complainant is also the owner of trade mark registrations for CHATROULETTE (“Complainant’s Mark) across various jurisdictions as follows.
JURISDICTION/ TM OFFICE
REGISTRATION NUMBER
FILING/ REGISTRATION YEAR
IC CLASS
Switzerland / IPI
600401
2010/ 2010
35, 38, 42
United States / USPTO
4445843
2011/ 2013
38, 45
Russian Federation (Russia) / ROSPATENT
429957
2010/ 2011
35, 38, 42
European Union / EUIPO
008944076
2010/ 2012
35, 38, 42
Germany / DPMA
3020100037067
2010/ 2013
35, 38, 42 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant states that he created the Chatroulette service and website when he was a 17-year-old high school student in Moscow after realising that no website existed which allowed for random video chatting with other Internet users from around the world. Complainant says that he chose the name “Chatroulette” after watching a film in which American soldiers in Viet Nam played the game of Russian roulette. By combining the term “chat” which is one of the core purposes of Complainant’s website, and the word “roulette”, which is associated with the thrill of unpredictability, the essence of Chatroulette was captured. Complainant further contends that he had coined a name that he felt encapsulated the ideas, goals, and mission of his business.
Complainant states that Chatroulette quickly established popularity and a high-profile reputation. Very shortly after its launch, the Chatroulette website began to receive 500 visitors per day while continuing to experience consistent growth, and one month later in January 2010, this figure had increased to 50,000 visitors per day. In February 2010, that traffic had jumped to approximately 130,000 visitors per day.
Complainant contends that Chatroulette continues to be well-known as one of the most popular video chat sites in the world, with website generating significant interest and attention internationally among fans, the media, and competitors.
Complainant asserts that Chatroulette has also attracted numerous copycat, clone sites that mimic the Chatroulette website and functionality, as well as encouraged cybersquatters wishing to exploit the popularity and goodwill of Complainant.
Complainant states that by virtue of its trade mark registrations, it has the exclusive ownership and use of Complainant’s Mark.
Complainant further states that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, and nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s Marks. Complainant notes that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
Complainant contents that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the letter “t” at the beginning and that this typosquatting by Respondent is evidence of his intention to confuse Internet users and bad faith registration. Respondent is said to be using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website which occasionally features links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business, for instance, the website at which the Domain Name resolves featured third-party links for “Webcam Chat Software” and “Online Chat Rooms Free”, and as such, Respondent is not using the Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services
Further, Complainant asserts, that Respondent is currently offering to sell the Domain Name for an amount that far exceeds Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the domain, which serves as further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests, constituting bad faith registration.
Complainant contends that at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of Complainant’s Marks and that registration of domain names containing well-known trade marks constitutes bad faith.
Complainant claims that Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting as, in addition to the Domain Name, Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trade marks of well-known brands and businesses, including:
- (Crown Royale, Ltd – CROWN ROYALE)
- (Daimler AG – DAIMLER)
- (Google LLC – GOOGLE)
- (General Motors LLC – CHEVROLET) B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established to the satisfaction of the Panel that Complainant’s Mark has been used in relation to Complainant’s online video chat and online video social introduction and networking services and that Complainant has registered Complainant’s Mark in a number of jurisdictions.
It is plain enough that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the letter “t”. The Panel accepts Complainant’s submission that this amounts to typosquatting by Respondent as the Domain Name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s Mark. In the absence of any attempt to refute these allegations it is found that:
a) Complainant has rights in respect of Complainant’s Mark.
b) The Domain Name is for all intents and purposes the same as Complainant’s Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In terms of whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website which occasionally features links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. This suggests that the Domain Name is being used to attract Internet users to a website, thereby misleading consumers or potential consumers as to the Domain Name and affiliation of Respondent with or to Complainant.
Such conduct is not legitimate. It is found that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given Complainant’s use and registration of Complainant’s Mark, the Panel infers that Respondent knew of Complainant’s Mark when registering the Domain Name and is participating in or benefiting from use of the Domain Name to somehow redirect Internet users to a website which features links to third-party websites.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name for purpose of making a commercial gain and that Internet users might wrongly believe that the Domain Name is associated with Complainant or is otherwise endorsed by Complainant, when this is not the case.
The Panel thus finds that the third limb of the Policy has been met. 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Clive L. Elliott QC
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy