The Complainant is Qantas Airways Limited, Australia (“AU”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Daniel Chow, China. 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 June 3, 2019. On June 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 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 June 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2019.
The Center appointed Ian Blackshaw as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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
Founded in the Queensland outback in 1920, the Complainant has grown to be one of Australia’s largest domestic and international airlines. It was originally registered as the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited (QANTAS).
The Complainant’s main business is the transportation of customers using two complementary airline brands – “Qantas” and “Jetstar”. In the financial year ended June 2018, the Complainant carried more than 55 million passengers.
In addition to the core business of transporting passengers and air freight, the Complainant operates a number of subsidiaries, and also has interests in associated businesses, including inflight catering, and holiday and travel operations. At present, the Complainant employs over 30,000 people globally.
The Complainant has consistently received awards and recognitions. World Travel Awards named the Complainant as “Australasia’s Leading Airline” from 2003 to 2007. In 2017, the Complainant dominated the Randstad Employer Brand Research, with the Complainant being awarded Australia’s top employer in the Randstad Awards. In the same year, the Complainant’s rebranding of its Kangaroo logo as part of the launch of its new 787-9 Dreamliner was also recognized by the 2017 Sydney Design Awards.
The Complainant also maintains its primary website at “”. In this site, customers had a total visit of approximately 6.78 million in the past six months. A ranks as the 107th most popular website in Australia and 2,978th in Hong Kong, China.
In addition, the Complainant has registered 125 other domain names which incorporate its QANTAS trademark, including and .
The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions and the Panel has been provided with printouts from the Intellectual Property Office of Australia (IPAU) and Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) for these registrations.
Some relevant trademarks are:
TRADEMARK
JURISDICTION /
TM OFFICE
REGISTRATION NUMBER
CLASS
REGISTERED FROM
QANTAS
AU / IPAU
289938
16
August 25,1975
QANTAS
AU / IPAU
318136
20
May 10, 1978
The Complainant’s brand is well recognized and respected worldwide and in their industry the Complainant has made significant investment to advertise and promote the Complainant’s trademark worldwide in the media and the Internet over the years.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 1, 2002. The disputed domain name resolved to various websites and at some point, it was redirecting to “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
By virtue of its trademark registrations, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel, the Complainant is the owner of QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1: (“Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.”).
It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademarks, not to take the extension into account. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”).
The disputed domain name not only incorporates the Complainant’s QANTAS AIRWAYS trademark in its entirety, it also incorporates the Complainant’s QANTAS trademark while merely adding the descriptive term “airways” to such trademark. Thus, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar, if not identical, to these trademarks. The fact that the additional term “airways” is closely linked and associated with the Complainant’s QANTAS brand and trademark only serves to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.
More specifically, the term “airways” relates to the Complainant’s primary business of transporting passengers and air freight.
Further, the Complainant has been using the business name “Qantas Airways Limited” since its registration on January 18, 1934, evidence of which has again been provided to the Panel.
Past UDRP panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that complainant’s business is confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”).
Additionally, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name contributes to the confusion.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect internet users to “/filter?dh=1cf99610e5e484cc810ffaaa7764ad9a975c8244&sid=6 9&s=&t=1549851427&b=0&k=0&h=20bb91a21778cd1551592bb94c596244”, which finally resolves to “”, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel.
This use suggests that the Respondent intended the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion. Although the content is usually disregarded under the first element of the UDRP, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15 allows for instances where “panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name”. As a result, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website owned by one of the Complainant’s competitors shows that the Respondent is attempting an association with the Complainant and its business in order create user confusion when users attempt to access the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name.
Based on the foregoing, the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for the following reasons:
The granting of registrations by the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Office (“HKIPO”), IPAU and OEPM to the Complainant for the QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks is prima facie evidence of the validity of the term “qantas” and “qantas airways” as trademarks, of the Complainant’s ownership of these trademarks, and of the Complainant’s exclusive rights to use the QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. SeePolicy, paragraph 4(c)(ii). See also World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642 (finding that a respondent, or his/her organization or business, must have been commonly known by the at-issue domain at the time of registration in order to have a legitimate interest in the domain).
Furthermore, the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way.
The Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. “In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed”. See Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong,WIPO Case No. D2014-1875.
In the instant case, the pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as “Daniel Chow” which does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner – thus, where no evidence, including the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name, suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, then the Respondent cannot be regarded as having acquired rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii). See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,WIPO Case No. D2004-1049, in which the panel noted “that the Respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it can therefore not be ‘commonly known by the Domain Name’ []”).
Since 2013, the website of the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to different third-party websites that provide competing goods and services. According to “”, the disputed domain name redirected to “www.ww38.” from August 13, 2013 to January 25, 2014. Then, it redirected to “” from December 17, 2014 to May 31, 2017. During the period of September 18, 2017 and August 4, 2018, the disputed domain name started to redirect to too many websites. At the time of submitting the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to “/filter?dh=1cf99610e5e484cc810ffaaa7764ad9a975c8244&sid=6 9&s=&t=1549851427&b=0&k=0&h=20bb91a21778cd1551592bb94c596244”, but ultimately resolved to “”, the homepage of another airline, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel. As such, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). Numerous past UDRP panels have confirmed that such use does not bestow rights or legitimate interests upon a respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3 (“A respondent’s use of a complainant’s mark to redirect users (e.g., to a competing site) would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests.”) See CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC v. A Domain Privacy / Protection Domain,WIPO Case No. D2017-0144 (The use of confusingly similar domain names in association with websites that redirect visitors to competitor websites is not evidence of a bona fide service or offering of goods under the Policy.).
Moreover, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 1, 2002, which is significantly after the Complainant filed for registrations of its QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks with the AUIPO and OEPM, and also significantly after the Complainant registered its domain on May 17, 1996. Evidence has been provided to the Panel.
From the above, the Respondent does not possess any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant and its QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks are known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on September 1, 2002.
At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. In addition to the numerous trademarks filed in connection with Complainant’s business prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant owns and operates the largest airline in Australia, which demonstrates the Complainant’s fame. Further, performing searches across a number of Internet search engines for “qantas airways” returns multiple links referencing the Complainant and its business, evidence has been provided to the Panel. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 (“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark.”). See also Caesar World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 (“given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and presence on the Internet, indicates that Respondent was or should have been aware of the marks prior to registering the disputed Domain Name.”).
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii), because the Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the website at the disputed domain name has been featuring products and services that compete with the Complainant’s business, evidence has been provided to the Panel.
See Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. Galaxy International Pty Limited,WIPO Case No. D2011-1914 (“Respondent disrupted Complainant’s business by redirecting Complainant’s potential customers to its own website, which originally offered services in competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii).”). See also Paul Barnett Puckett, Individually and d/b/a Nature’s Window v. Christopher D. Miller,WIPO Case No. D2000-0297 (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii)).
Further, a Google search of “” shows that numerous third-party websites have mistakenly cited the disputed domain name as the Complainant’s official website, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel. As such, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates confusion as to the source of the disputed domain name in an attempt to trade on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark. A respondent’s use of a complainant’s mark – for the respondent’s own commercial benefit – to attract Internet users otherwise seeking said complainant evinces a finding of bad faith per Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). In fact, “Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.
The disputed domain name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name, and, thus, the disputed domain name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), with no good faith use possible.
More specifically, where the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS trademarks, there is no plausible good faith reason or logic for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, and “[…] the only feasible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent intends to cause confusion, mistake and deception by means of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, any use of the disputed domain name for an actual website could only be in bad faith.” See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
In addition to the disputed domain name, the Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses, evidence has been provided to the Panel. This fact demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2 (A pattern of abuse or a conduct of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting its mark in a domain name is found where “the respondent registers, simultaneously or otherwise, multiple trademark-abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of individual brand owners.”).
The following represent further examples of cybersquatting/typosquatting by the Respondent, thus establishing a pattern of such conduct and bad faith registration and use:
- (Mattel Inc. - BARBIE);
- (The Cartoon network, Inc. - CARTOON NETWORK);
- (Disney Enterprises, Inc. - DISNEY);
- (Google LLC - GOOGLE).
Finally, on the balance of the above facts, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1754 (“the Panel makes its finding regarding bad faith registration by asking whether it is more likely than not from the record of the evidence in the proceeding that Respondent had the ELECTRIC FOOTBALL trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name.”). 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 disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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.
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 disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar 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 disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS and this makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known registered trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the inclusion of the word “airways” in the disputed 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known registered trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS, 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed 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 disputed 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 disputed 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 disputed 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 trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS. 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 trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS, which the Panel considers, as asserted above by the Complainant, would appear not to be 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 trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS and also the valuable goodwill that the Complainant has established in these trademarks 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known registered trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS, is trading unfairly on the Complainant’s valuable goodwill established in such trademark.
The nature of the disputed 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 trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS.
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 disputed domain name is confusing and misleading and, in the view of the Panel, this is a further indication that the disputed 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 disputed domain name by chance, but, as noted above, appears to have been – or, at least, should have been – fully aware of the notoriety of the Complainant and its business activity, as well as its well-known registered trademarks QANTAS and QANTAS AIRWAYS and their prior and lengthy commercial use.
Also, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to various websites, including a website owned by one of the Complainant’s competitors, namely, Qatar Airways, is, in the view of the Panel, further evidence of bad faith registration and use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that there is evidence to show that the use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, because the website at the disputed domain name has been featuring products and services that compete with the Complainant’s business.
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 disputed 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Blackshaw
Sole Panelist
Date: July 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy