The Complainant is Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Australia, represented by Wrays, Australia.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“USA”) / Paul Cambria, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 26, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 30, 2019 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 May 1, 2019.
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 May 7, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Ian Blackshaw as the sole panelist in this matter on June 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 a well-known and well-established Bank operating in Australia.
The Complainant and its predecessors in title have provided financial services in Australia since 1894.
The Complainant is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
A true copy of the Complainant’s 2018 Annual Report, which, in the financial year of 2018, records an annual income of AUD 1.78 billion and an annual profit of AUD 681 million with respect to its Bankwest branded operations, has been provided to the Panel.
Under its BANKWEST trademarks, and, via its website “” and by way of various other websites, as evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant provides banking, financial and financing services, securities brokerage and the provision of information services and business services relating to banking and finance.
A copy of a report from the Australian Trademarks Register in respect of all the BANKWEST trademarks owned by the Complainant in Australia has been provided to the Panel, including Australian trademark registration number 628382 registered on April 26, 1994 (“BANKWEST Trademarks”).
The Complainant also promotes its services in connection with its BANKWEST Trademarks via social media platforms, including Facebook (which currently has 91,813 likes) and Twitter (which currently has approximately 21,100 followers). Screenshots of the Complainant’s Facebook and Twitter pages have been provided to the Panel.
The Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2019 and does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has registered rights in the BANKWEST Trademarks, having secured registration of these marks, as evidenced in the Complaint.
The Complainant has built a strong reputation in the BANKWEST Trademarks through substantial marketing and promotional activities in association with the BANKWEST Trademarks. For example, in the 2015/2016 financial year ending June 31, 2016, those marketing activities totalled AUD 7,705,000 in expenditure.
The propriety of a domain name registration can be questioned under the Policy by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree,WIPO Case No. D2002-0358). For the purposes of this Complaint, the Complainant refers to the Complainant's Australian trademark registrations.
It is well established that the inclusion of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) must be disregarded for the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name and the trademark: see for example, Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Oejan Macesic,WIPO Case No. D2000-1698; VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607.
The addition of the term “securities” fails to distinguish the Domain Name from the BANKWEST Trademarks since the word “securities” describes one of the Complainant's core services - i.e., securities brokering (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. S, WIPO Case No. D2000-1074).
Accordingly, the addition of this term is insufficient to differentiate the Domain Name from the BANKWEST trademarks.
If the gTLD “.com” and the term “securities” are disregarded, then the Domain Name consists solely of the BANKWEST trademark.
The Panel in Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,WIPO Case No. D2001-0505 stated that:
“The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.”
The Domain Name uses the BANKWEST Trademark in its entirety. The Domain Name is, therefore, identical to the BANKWEST Trademark (save for the descriptive word “securities”).
Furthermore and, in any event, the Domain Name and BANKWEST Trademarks are also confusingly similar, a summary of the relevant test for which is conveniently summarised as follows:
“For the determination of confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the threshold is conventionally modest, requiring an objective assessment of whether, for example, the trademark is clearly recognisable in the disputed domain name, even in the presence of additional words or strings.”
See Alfred Dunhi/1, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC I Abdullah Altubayieb,WIPO Case No. D2017-0209.
The BANKWEST Trademark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name even in the presence of the word “securities”. The Domain Name is, therefore, confusingly similar to the BANKWEST Trademarks.
Finally, the inclusion of a word in the Domain Name alongside the Complainant's trademark describing the Complainant’s services is more likely to increase confusion (Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name for the following reasons:
The Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to register a domain name incorporating the BANKWEST Trademarks.
The Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to use the BANKWEST Trademarks in any way whatsoever.
The Respondent has not made any use of the Domain Name in a way that establishes a legitimate interest arising from a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
For the purposes of this element, it is sufficient for the Complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate rights in the Domain Name. If the Complainant is able to do this, then the burden of proof is shifted on to the shoulders of the Respondent (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. S, WIPO Case No. D2000-1074).
When the Domain Name was entered into an Internet browser on April 24, 2019, the web browser returned an error message that “the requested URL was not found on this server – that’s all we know”.
A screenshot of the error message shown when accessing the Domain Name as seen on April 24, 2019 has been provided to the Panel.
The Respondent's holding of the Domain Name with no active website is referred to as “passive use” (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Shara Gatrel/e, The California Cannabis Connect,WIPO Case No. D2017‑0470).
By failing to make any active use of the Domain Name or associate any content with the Domain Name the Respondent fails to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent clearly selected the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “M”,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
The failure of the Domain Name to display any content and, instead, to display an error message such as the one mentioned above is sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of the absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent (Boehringer lngelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton,WIPO Case No. D2016-0021).
The Respondent has not, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name.
To the best of the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and so may not claim any rights established by common usage (Chinatrust Commercial Bank, Ltd. and Chinatrust Bank (U.S.A.) v. China Holding Company, Incorporated,WIPO Case No. D2001-0826). The Respondent appears to have taken active steps to conceal its identity by using a privacy service.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because the Complainant did not license, permit or authorise the Respondent to use the Bankwest name or the BANKWEST TradeMark (Imperial College v. Christophe Dessimoz,WIPO Case No. D2004-0322; San Giorgio Coffee, Inc. v. Marc DeCaria,WIPO Case No. D2010-0567); or to represent that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant.
The word “bankwest” does not constitute a common phrase and has no dictionary meaning. For example, neither the online Oxford Dictionary (accessible at “”), nor the online Cambridge Dictionary (accessible at “”) return any result for the word “bankwest”. Instead, the word has developed a meaning within Australia where the Complainant operates its business using BANKWEST as a badge of origin referring to the Complainant and its Bank. In this regard, several UDRP decisions involving the transfer of a domain name to the Complainant have confirmed this. See for example: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLP (PrivacyP) I Mill Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2018-2321; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC I Evelyn Wong,WIPO Case No. D2018-0770; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC I Ravindra Patel, gbe,WIPO Case No. D2017-0807; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. My Private Registration I Alex Jones, The trustee for MG Websites,WIPO Case No. D2017-2306; and Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Howard Johns Consultancy PIL,WIPO Case No. DCO2014-0033.
The Complainant submits that the BANKWEST Trademark has no value apart from its association with the Complainant and the Complainant's trademarks.
By reason of the above, the Complainant submits it has established a prima facie case against the Respondent demonstrating that it has no interests or legitimate rights in the Domain Name, such as to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited,WIPO Case No. D2004-0753.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Respondent registered and has used, and is continuing to use, the Domain Name in bad faith, by virtue of holding the Domain Name without any proper or legitimate use.
The objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another (M LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).
The Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The Domain Name “is so obviously connected with the trademark and company name of the Complainant” and the Respondent has no connection to the Complainant. Therefore, “its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith” (Rea/time Forex SA v. Rhone Consultants SA,WIPO Case No. D2006-0089).
The Respondent has used, and is continuing to use, the Domain Name in bad faith: In Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the Panel stated:
“...the relevant issue is not whether the Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith in relation to the domain name, but instead whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the Respondent is acting in bad faith. The distinction between undertaking a positive action in bad faith and acting in bad faith may seem a rather fine distinction, but it is an important one. The significance of the distinction is that the concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”
In lnter-lKEA v. Polanski,WIPO Case No. D2000-1614, the Panel asserted in relation to the use of a trademark:
“...even if in the future the Respondent were passively holding the domain name , this behavior would, under the circumstances of the case, amount to bad faith use.”
The Respondent has demonstrated exactly this bad faith use, by: registering the Complainant’s trademark in a Domain Name to mislead the public and create a false association with the Complainant; and passively holding the Domain Name for no legitimate purpose.
Passive Holding
In Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. ChinaV.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0615, the panel (referring to Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra) described a set of particular circumstances, which show a respondent’s passive holding of a domain name amounting to acting in bad faith. The relevant circumstances which appear in the present case include:
the Complainant’s BANKWEST Trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by the Complainant’s substantial use of the mark in Australia;
there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent of the Domain Name;
the Respondent concealed its true identity by using a privacy service; and
it is not possible to conceive of any actual or plausible contemplated active use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would be legitimate.
The same approach was taken in Boehringer lngelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton,WIPO Case No. D2016-0021 in relation to the respondent’s registration of the domain name (which incorporated the complainant's trademark, BOEHRINGER lNGELHEIM). The domain name in that decision resolved to an inactive website and displayed the same error message (i.e., a “404” error) as shown in the case file. The panel concluded, on facts that are very similar to those in the present case, that the domain name in the earlier case was registered and used in bad faith.
The Domain Name in the present case is also likely to confuse consumers as to whether the Complainant is the source of, has sponsored or endorsed, or is affiliated with the Respondent’s website, because the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BANKWEST Trademark (in which the Complainant has rights) as set out in the above paragraph.
The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith on March 31, 2019 because the Respondent knew, or ought to have known, about the existence of the BANKWEST Trademarks (SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin,WIPO Case No. D2001-1092). 25 years before the Domain Name was registered, the Complainant’s first BANKWEST trademark was filed for registration in Australia (with effect from April 26, 1994). The Complainant’s predecessor in title, BWA (Bank of Western Australia), had registered “Bankwest” as a business name in Western Australia on September 23, 1993, some 25 years earlier than the date of registration of the Domain Name.
A Google search would have revealed the Complainant’s trademark rights to the Respondent immediately (Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex,WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc v. WebReg RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; L'Oreal v. Domain Park Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0072; BOUYGES v. Chengzhang Lu Ciagao,WIPO Case No. D2007‑1325; Media General Communications Inc v. Rarenames WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006‑0964; Invisible Technologies Inc v. Navigation Catalyst Systems Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007‑1141).
The Complainant submits that when all the circumstances of the Respondent’s actions are considered cumulatively, a finding of bad faith is clearly open to the Panel. To summarise the salient points:
the Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s well-known brand and registered BANKWEST Trademark; the Domain Name features the word “bankwest” which has no meaning or common use, other than as a reference to the Complainant and its product and services;
the Domain Name features the descriptive term “securities” which describes one of the Complainant's core services (i.e., securities brokering);
the Respondent has made no substantive use of the Domain Name;
the Respondent concealed its true identity by using a privacy service; and
the Respondent registered the Domain Name 25 years after the Complainant's predecessor in title, BWA, first commenced using the Bankwest name in Australia.
It is submitted that:
the Respondent’s constructive knowledge of the BANKWEST Trademark via the Complainant's reputation and registrations; and
the Respondent’s lack of legitimate use of the Domain Name in the manner described above, by passively holding the Domain Name, with a URL that is effectively identical (or at the very least, confusingly similar) to the BANKWEST Trademark, which will lead to confusion on the part of Internet users: Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar,WIPO Case No. D2010-1364; Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd / Mr Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267, in aggregation constitutes bad faith use and registration.
In all these circumstances, the Complainant submits that each of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied, and respectfully requests that the Panel to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent, having been duly notified of the Complaint and of these proceedings, did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions or take any part in these proceedings. 6. Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer of the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) The 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, in the event that a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by the Rules or the panel, the panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint; and under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the panel, the panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate.
In accordance with paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, the panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.
In previous UDRP cases in which the respondents failed to file a response, the panels’ decisions were based upon the complainants’ reasonable assertions and evidence, as well as inferences drawn from the respondents’ failure to reply. See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002‑1064; and also Köstritzer Schwarzbierbrauerei v. Macros-Telekom Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2001‑0936.
Nevertheless, the panel must not decide in the complainant’s favor solely based on the respondent’s default. See Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel García Quintas,WIPO Case No. D2000‑0140. In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000‑1525.
In the present case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark BANKWEST and this makes the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark BANKWEST.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the inclusion of the word “securities” in the Domain Name is irrelevant and does not have the effect of avoiding the confusing similarity. See Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,WIPO Case No. D2012-2066. See also Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Jason Blevins,WIPO Case No. D2009‑0233.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well‑known registered trademark BANKWEST, in which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that it has prior rights in and commercial use of the same.
The first element of the Policy, therefore, has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In order to determine whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(c) of the Policy), attention must be paid to any of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation:
- whether there is any evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute;
- whether the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights;
- whether the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence before the Panel to show that the Respondent was acting in pursuance of any rights or legitimate interests with respect to registering the Domain Name. On the contrary, if the Respondent had any such rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent would have reasonably been expected to assert them, which the Respondent clearly has not done so, by not replying to the Complaint or taking any part in these proceedings. See Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004‑0110.
There is no evidence either before the Panel that the Respondent has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark BANKWEST. In fact, in the view of the Panel, the adoption by the Respondent of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well‑known registered trademark BANKWEST, which the Panel considers, as asserted above by the Complainant, would appear not by mere chance but by design, inevitably leads to confusion on the part of Internet users and consumers seeking information about the Complainant and its products and services.
Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent is consequentially trading unfairly on the Complainant’s well‑known registered trademark BANKWEST and also the valuable goodwill that the Complainant has established in this trademark through prior and lengthy commercial use, as evidenced above, without any right or legal justification for doing so.
Also, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the Domain Name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Therefore, for all the above reasons and those advanced above by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Regarding the bad faith requirement, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four examples of acts, which constitute prima facie evidence of bad faith. However, this list is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative. See Nova Banka v. Iris,WIPO Case No. D2003‑0366.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is particularly relevant to the present case and provides that there is evidence of bad faith in the following circumstances:
“(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [its] web site or location.”
Based on the evidence provided on the record, the Panel considers that the Respondent, by registering the Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark BANKWEST, is trading unfairly on the Complainant’s valuable goodwill established in such trademark.
The nature of the Domain Name, in the view of the Panel, is bound to lead to confusion on the part of consumers and Internet users seeking information about the Complainant and its products and services marketed under its well-known registered trademark BANKWEST. In fact, the inclusion of the word “securities” as part of the Domain Name adds to the confusion, as it is descriptive of one of the financial services offered by the Complainant, namely “securities brokerage”.
Also, the effect of such conduct on the part of the Respondent is to mislead Internet users and consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business; or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant. None of which the Panel can find, on the basis of the evidence provided on the record, is, in fact, the situation. Such misleading consequences, in the view of the Panel, are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Columbia Insurance Company v. Pampered Gourmet,WIPO Case No. D2004‑0649.
Furthermore, see also Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000‑1493, in which it was stated that “consumers expect to find a company on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or trademark”. As this is not, in fact, the situation in the present case, the use by the Respondent of the Domain Name is confusing and misleading and, in the view of the Panel, this is a further indication that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Again, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary by the Respondent, of which none is forthcoming on the record, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent did not register and use the Domain Name by chance, but, as noted above, appears to have been fully aware of the notoriety of the Complainant and its business activity, as well as its well-known registered trademark BANKWEST and its prior and lengthy commercial use.
Moreover, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the “passive use” by the Respondent of the Domain Name is also an indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent, for the reasons and on the basis of the previous UDRP cases cited above by the Complainant in this respect.
Finally, the failure of the Respondent to answer the Complaint or take any part in the present proceedings, again, in the view of the Panel, is another indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002‑0787.
Therefore, taking all these particular facts and circumstances into account and for all the above-mentioned reasons, as well as the arguments advanced by the Complainant in its contentions and the previous UDRP cases cited, as set out above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. 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 Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Blackshaw
Sole Panelist
Date: June 5, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy