The Complainant is Wirecard AG of Munich, Germany, represented by Pinsent Masons LLP, Germany.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2018. On November 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 November 20, 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 November 21, 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 November 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2018.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on December 27, 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 payment systems provider which also provides a variety of connected banking and financing services. It owns trademarks for the name WIRECARD including European Union trademark registration number 004825998, registered on July 2, 2007. The Complainant owns a number of domain names which it uses to market its services, including , registered on June 15, 1998.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 21, 2018. It currently resolves to a website offering trading in bitcoins. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s trademark WIRECARD is entirely encompassed in the disputed domain name. The only difference between the two is the addition of the word “go” which fails sufficiently to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. That name has not been used in the past in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The diversion of Internet users from the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name to various random websites indicates that the Respondent is abusing the Complainant’s good name in order to create the impression of a connection between the Complainant and fraudulent websites. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have consent from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is well aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its fame and goodwill. The Complainant’s trademarks and company name do not have any meaning and the use of the word “wirecard” can only refer to the Complainant’s trademarks and company name.
The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and renowned business name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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 consists of the Complainant’s trademark, prefaced by the word “go” and completed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The trademark is a made-up term combining two words “wire” and “card”. The addition of a dictionary or descriptive term or a gTLD to a trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to a trademark which is the disputed domain name’s only other content: WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.8 and 1.11.1. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “wirecard” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has diverted the disputed domain name to a website appearing to enable consumers to trade bitcoin. The use of bitcoin in payment services activity is well-known. The Complainant’s trademark consists of two ordinary meaning words with no natural connection to each other. It seems inherently unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without being familiar with the Complainant’s name.
In this Panel’s view, one is left with three possible motives for the Respondent’s decision to register and use the disputed domain name as he has done: to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with their customers or potential customers, to attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain, or to persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from him for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent’s motivation may have been more than one of these and perhaps all three.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. The Panel does not need to reach a decision on any of the other allegations made by the Complainant. 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: January 9, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy