The Complainant is Facebook, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Domain Admin Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP), United States / Do Viet Dung, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Mat Bao Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 15, 2019. On May 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 16, 2019, 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 May 20, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center transmitted an email in English and Vietnamese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 23, 2019, in which it requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Vietnamese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2019.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 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.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Facebook, Inc., a leading provider of online social networking services, owning several trademark registrations for FACEBOOK, among which the following ones:
- United States Trademark Registration No. 3,122,052 for FACEBOOK, registered on July 25, 2006;
- European Union Trademark Registration No. 009151192 for FACEBOOK, registered on December 17, 2010;
- Vietnamese Trademark Registration No. 40128158000 for FACEBOOK, registered on June 26, 2009.
The Complainant operates on the Internet at its main website, “”, and owns many domain names consisting of or including the trademark FACEBOOK.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2018, according to the WhoIs records, and when the Complaint was filed the website at the disputed domain name was reproducing the trademark and logo of the Complainant and offering telephone-support services to Facebook users in Viet Nam. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark FACEBOOK, as the disputed domain name can be read as “tông dài Facebook Viet Nam”, meaning in English “Facebook Viet Nam switchboard”.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts the Respondent is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark FACEBOOK is distinctive and internationally known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s famous trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s associated website qualifies as bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International PLC v. Mark Freeman,WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et. al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0288). 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceedings
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding will be English. The language of the Registration Agreements is Vietnamese, however, the Complainant has been able to provide evidence that the Respondent can understand English, as many pages of the website at the disputed domain name are in English, and that it would be unfair to request the Complainant to translate the Complaint. Furthermore, the Respondent did not comment to the Complainant’s request to use English and did not submit a formal reply. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 4.5.1). 6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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 Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark FACEBOOK both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FACEBOOK.
Regarding the addition of the words “tong dai” (meaning “switchboard” in Vietnamese) and “vietnam” (the name of the country where the Respondent is located), the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of descriptive terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub,WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the words “tong dai” and “vietnam” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests he may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark FACEBOOK is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name, , especially because the website at the disputed domain name is reproducing the trademark and logo of the Complainant and is claiming to offer telephone-support services to Facebook users in Viet Nam.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since on the relevant website the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and logo are displayed in an attempt to pass off as a help center of the Complainant or somehow connected to the Complainant.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and/or for phishing.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy