The Complainant is S, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Azhar Khan, Plan My Trip of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names, (the “First Domain Name”) and (the “Second Domain Name”) (together “the Domain Names”), are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 18, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On July 18, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 19, 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 July 19, 2018.
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 July 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 10, 2018.
The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 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.
The original Complaint identified three different entities as registrants of the Domain Names, two taken (with very limited contact details) from the Registrar’s WhoIs database, namely Domains By Proxy, LLC of Arizona, United States for the First Domain Name, Plan My Trip of Uttar Pradesh, India for the Second Domain Name and a third, being an individual with an address in Mumbai, India whose name and address had previously been supplied to the Complainant in response to a request of the registrar of record in relation to the Second Domain Name.
The original Complaint included evidence demonstrating that the registrants of the Domain Names were likely to be the same entity or under common control and requested that the Domain Names, albeit held under different names, be dealt with at the same time under the one Complaint. It has become unnecessary for the Panel to address this issue because the Registrar, in response to the Center’s request for Registrar verification, has identified the named Respondent as the registrant of both the Domain Names. The Complainant duly filed an amendment to the Complaint identifying the Respondent as the sole respondent. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a United States corporation with its global headquarters in San Francisco. It was founded in 1999 and is a leading supplier of customer relationship management services. In the last financial year it had revenue of over USD 10 billion and 29,000 employees.
A major feature of the Complainant’s year is the organization of a trade show, which it presents in San Francisco under the name “Dreamforce”. In 2003, the first year of the event there were approximately 1,000 attendees. In 2017 that figure had risen to 170,000.
The Complainant is the proprietor of various trade mark registrations for the name “Dreamforce” including by way of example United States Registration No. 3035403 for DREAMFORCE (word), registered on December 27, 2005 in class 41 for various educational services. The Complainant is also the proprietor of several domain name registrations featuring the name, “Dreamforce”, including registered on May 1, 1998, and registered on August 31, 2015.
The First Domain Name was originally registered on January 17, 2018, and the Second Domain Name was originally registered on May 22, 2018. It should be noted that the Second Domain Name, , features as the penultimate character of the name at the second level a lower case “L” instead of the numeral “1”.
The Domain Names were originally connected to websites replicating in large part elements of the Complainant’s website dealing with the Complainant’s Dreamforce 2018 event and seeking personal details of individuals enquiring about the event and/or registering for the event. Neither of the Domain Names is now active, both having been suspended, although the Second Domain Name now connects to what appears to be a Pay-Per-Click webpage of the hosting provider. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its DREAMFORCE registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, and the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant demonstrates several bases for its bad faith contention, the primary one being that the Respondent registered the Domain Names to impersonate the Complainant and to deceive Internet users into providing their personal details and in all likelihood for fraudulent purposes. The Panel finds it unnecessary to address the Complainant’s other contentions in this regard. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Findings
The circumstances of this case are such that the Panel can deal with all three of the above elements together.
The contention of the Complainant, amply supported by documentary evidence and unchallenged by the Respondent, is that the Respondent registered the Domain Names to impersonate the Complainant, connecting them to websites replicating in large part features of the Complainant’s website concerned with the Complainant’s Dreamforce 2018 trade show; and that the Respondent’s purpose was to deceive Internet users into providing their contact details, those Internet users believing that they were supplying them to the Complainant for the purposes of obtaining information about and/or registering for the Complainant’s Dreamforce 2018 trade fair in San Francisco.
To achieve its aim the Respondent duly registered the Domain Names, being names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DREAMFORCE trade mark, and connected them to websites designed to deceive visitors to those sites that they were websites of the Complainant. In the view of the Panel, the Respondent’s purpose can only have been fraudulent. The fact that the latter part of the Second Domain Name at the second level appears to read “2018”, but in fact reads “20l8” is an obvious indicator, in the unlikely event that any further indicator is required.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar, that the Respondent can have acquired no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, and that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. While it is the case that the Domain Names have been suspended and are no longer being used for their intended purpose, the Panel has no doubt that if left in the hands of the Respondent they would continue to be used for that purpose. See generally, regarding respondent intention to cause confusion, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, sections 1.7, 1.15, and 3.1.1. 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 Names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy