The Complainant is GAMELOFT S.E. of Paris, France, internally represented.
The Respondent is Sherry Ddepues of Georgia, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2018. On September 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 October 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2018.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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
The Complainant, GAMELOFT S.E., is an international publisher and developer of digitally distributed video games, founded in 1999. The Complainant has released more than two hundred games and several have been downloaded by millions of players. The Complainant is a leader in the mobile gaming industry.
The Complainant owns various registrations for domain names that include its registered trademark, including (registered on April 8, 1999) and (registered on February 4, 1999), among others.
The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the GAMELOFT trademark, which enjoys protection through numerous registrations worldwide.
The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:
European Union trademark GAMELOFT, number 2473767, registered on March 13, 2006.
US trademark GAMELOFT, number 2,474,984, registered on August 7, 2001.
International trademark GAMELOFT, number 907208, registered on October 31, 2006.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 29, 2017, and it is not linked to any website or active page.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(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
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety and differs from the trademark of the Complainant only in the addition of the “.store” Top-Level Domain. This difference is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Gameloft” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the GAMELOFT mark when she registered the disputed domain name.
This opinion is due to the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is distinctive, it has been widely used for many years, and it is renowned, at least in the gaming field. Consequently, the Respondent was presumably aware of the same when she registered the disputed domain name.
The Respondent also appears to have lost in a previous proceeding at the WIPO for having abusively registered the domain name , namely another domain name incorporating a renowned third-party trademark (Sanofi v. Sherry Ddepues,WIPO Case No. D2017-2347).
It therefore appears that the Respondent has established a pattern of registering domain names that correspond to and/or contain third parties’ trademarks. This pattern of conduct clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
Another inference of bad faith is given by the fact that the disputed domain name is passively held.
The Respondent has not denied the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name she would have at least indicated them.
Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: November 14, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy