The Complainant is Corporation Service Company Corporation of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Sefa Yapici of Istanbul, Turkey, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , and are registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2019. On March 20, 2019, the Center received an unsolicited email communication in Turkish from the Respondent, indicating that it indeed owns the disputed domain names, and requesting an additional 20 days extension of Response due date. On March 28, 2019, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on April 4, 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 Complainant is an internationally active company with its registered seat in the United States. It is an established provider of business, legal, financial and digital brand services with various office locations worldwide (Annex 4.4 to the Complaint).
The Complainant is the owner of various CSC trademarks. According to the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the United States Trade Mark Registration No. 2630508 (registered on October 8, 2002) and the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 015194319 (registered on March 9, 2017), both covering trademark protection, inter alia, for online business services as protected by classes 35 and 42.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate its trademark CSC, such as (registered on April 2, 2005), and (registered on July 9, 2014).
The Respondent is an individual from Istanbul, Turkey. As indicated in Annex 9 to the Complaint, the Respondent has been involved in further domain name disputes, all of them decided by the respective panel against him.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 6, 2017.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 28, 2017.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 29, 2018.
At the time of the decision, none of the disputed domain names resolves to active websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its CSC trademarks.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. It is rather argued that the disputed domain names falsely suggest that there is an official or authorized link between the Complainant and the Respondent.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s CSC trademark, when registering and taking control over the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, even though it announced to do so in its informal email communication to the Center of March 20, 2019. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark CSC by virtue of various trademark registrations in the United States and the European Union (Annex 1 to the Complaint).
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, as they fully incorporate the Complainant’s CSC trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the additions of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In the present case, the mere addition of the terms “global”, “digital”, and “brand”, does in view of the Panel not serve to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s CSC trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any relevant evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark CSC in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain names.
In the absence of a formal Response, there is no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names, particularly as the disputed domain names are apparently not actively used. The Respondent has also failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or any other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel notes the nature and composition of the disputed domain names and believes that the Respondent deliberately attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users and/or to freeride on the goodwill of the Complainant’s CSC trademark, apparently for illegitimate commercial gain and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
In this regard, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CSC. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had this recognized trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain names. This is in view of the Panel particularly valid as all generic terms used by the Respondent within the disputed domain names apparently target the Complainant’s core business and activities and, hence, even increase the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark CSC.
Additionally, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint also supports the conclusion that it has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Panel believes that, if the Respondent did in fact have legitimate purposes in registering and using the disputed domain names, it would have probably responded to the Complainant’s contentions.
In this regard, the Panel further notes that the Respondent has apparently been involved in three previous domain name disputes as a respondent, all of them decided against it.
The fact that the disputed domain names are currently inactive does in view of the Panel not prevent a finding of bad faith.
All in all, the Panel cannot conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain names which is not related to the CSC trademark owned by the Complainant. By registering multiple domain names all containing the Complainant’s CSC trademark, the Respondent appears to be engaged in a bad faith pattern of domain name registration. The Panel believes that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: April 26, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy