The Complainants are Virgin Enterprises Limited and The Virgin Foundation of London, United Kingdom, represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain ID Shield Service Co. Limited of Hong Kong, China / Marcel Elzehama, Domains Services, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 30, 2018. On November 30, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 3, 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 December 3, 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 December 4, 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 December 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 26, 2018.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2019. 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 first Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, the brand owner for the Virgin Group of Companies. The Virgin Group originated in 1970 when Richard Branson began selling music records under the VIRGIN trademark. The Virgin Group now comprises over 60 businesses worldwide, operating in 35 countries including throughout Europe, the United States of America, and Australasia.
The first Complainant is the owner of the VIRGIN trademark and company name, and owns several trademark registrations granted worldwide for the “VIRGIN Mark”. The first Complainant has been using the VIRGIN Mark since the seventies (e.g. United Kingdom registration No. 1009534, registered on April 11, 1973).
As evidenced by the documents attached to the Complaint, the first Complainant’s mark VIRGIN was extensively promoted, without limitation, in print advertisements, promotional materials, Internet forums, etc. As stated, the Complainant has a significant portfolio of trademark registrations, domain registrations and a reputation in the VIRGIN brand.
The second Complainant, The Virgin Foundation, operates under the name Virgin Unite and is the independent charitable arm of the Virgin Group. The B-TEAM is a not-for-profit initiative between a global group of business leaders for the promotion of socially and environmentally responsible business models.
The second Complainant owns registration for the mark B-TEAM since 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The first Complainant is the owner of the trademark VIRGIN, which is object of a considerable number of registrations worldwide. Besides, the Complainant also owns several domain name registrations. Proof of these allegations were presented as annex 4 to the Complaint. Due to the Complainant’s operations, the VIRGIN Mark has acquired international recognition and is necessarily linked to the Complainant.
The VIRGIN Mark is associated to the Complainant’s core business. The use of the mark started more than 40 years ago. The Complainant has been recognized for its business services and brand recognition, as shows a witness statement from Emily Hill (annex 5 to the Complaint).
Further, as stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the VIRGIN Mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIRGIN Mark.
The second Complainant is the charitable arm of the Virgin Group, operating under the mark B-TEAM a non-profit initiative for the promotion of business models that are both socially and environmentally responsible. Several business leaders worldwide are part of this initiative, as states the website “/unite/B-Team”.
The disputed domain name contains both the mark VIRGIN and the mark B-TEAM. The domain contains both marks in their entirety, thus linking it directly to the business conducted by the Complainants.
The disputed domain name directs to a webpage that mirrors the official webpage of the operation conducted by the second Complainant, as shown in Annex 7 to the Complaint. As the annex 6 shows the official webpage of the second Complainant, the reproduction can be seen.
Further, the Complainants state that the Respondent has been sending emails from the address [...]@ to individuals, asking the recipient for their personal information and money. The emails are signed as “Richard”, as shown in annex 8.
Additionally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name intentionally misleads Internet users, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(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 is, indeed, confusingly similar to the VIRGIN and to the B-TEAM Marks, as they are entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name.
The first Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the VIRGIN mark in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international trademark registrations, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark. Also, the second Complainant has presented evidence of use and registration of the mark B-TEAM.
The use of the VIRGIN and of the B-TEAM marks together in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirements under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is clear evidence that the VIRGIN Mark is registered in the first Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this trademark to the Respondent. There is also clear evidence of the use of the mark B-TEAM by the second Complainant, to identify non-profit activities from the Virgin Group. Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case.
It has also been shown that the Respondent is making a questionable use of the disputed domain name, redirecting it to a website that reproduces the one of the Complainant’s. Evidence also shows that the Respondent is in fact using the disputed domain name to deceive Internet users via a fraudulent email scheme.
The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the circumstances of this case, the facts evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainants have submitted evidence of a fraudulent email scheme executed by the Respondent, using an email account relating to the disputed domain name to obtain information and gain from third parties. The disputed domain name was registered to clearly mislead the consumers – as it directs to a page mocking up that of the Complainant, and uses a contact email that induces users to error.
The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainants’ business, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for unlawful purposes. The Respondent’s redirection to a copy of the Complainants’ website further shows that it is attempting to mislead consumers into believing that the disputed domain name is associated or affiliated with the Complainants, when it is not.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainants and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy