The Complainant is JLC Licensoft Limited, Seychelles, internally represented.
The Respondent is Sergey Tytarenko, Ukraine. 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 August 12, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 13, 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 August 15, 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 August 19, 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 August 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 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 following facts are undisputed.
The Complainant provides dating services in the United States of America and the European Union through the website “”. The online dating service offers men from all over the world to meet Slavic women for dating and marriage.
The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark JUMP4LOVE (device mark) with registration no. 16507386 for services in classes 38 and 45, registered in 2017 and the United States trademark JUMP4LOVE with registration no. 5306517 for services in class 45, also registered in 2017, with a date of first use on March 19, 2009 (hereinafter in singular referred to as the “Trademark”).
The Complainant is the owner of the domain name since 2009.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on August 19, 2015. The Domain Name redirects the public to another domain name , which redirects to the domain name . The website to which the domain name resolves provides online dating services for men to meet Russian and Ukraine women (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Insofar as relevant, the Complainant contends the following.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The representation of the wording of the Domain Name clearly and completely resembles the wording of the Trademark, with the addition of the letter “‘s”. The addition of the letter “‘s” in the Domain Name makes little, if any, difference in the similarity and identity analysis.
The Respondent has no right of legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. No license or authorization of any kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the Trademark. The Respondent is using the Domain Name in an attempt to misleadingly divert consumers away from the Complainant’s business. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is using the Domain Name in an attempt to profit off the fame of the Trademark.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name resolves to the Website which resembles the Complainant’s webpage under the almost identical domain name , therefore it is unlikely that Respondent was unaware of the business and website of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Domain Name resolves to the Website which has every appearance of being a webpage belonging to the Complainant. The use of the confusingly similar Domain Name for a competing website indicates that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract visitors to the competitor’s website for commercial gain. The Domain Name is so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services, the use by the Respondent who has no connection to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith. The Respondent is using a privacy service to hide its identity, which serves as evidence for registration in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademark.
As set out in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.10, the Panel’s assessment of identity and confusingly similarity involves comparing the Domain Name and the textual components of the relevant mark. To the extent that design elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or confusingly similarity under the first element. In the present case, the Domain Name incorporates the word elements of the Trademark in its entirety and adds the letter “’s”. The Panel finds that the addition of the common plural signifier letter “’s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is in this matter irrelevant in the determination of the confusing similarity between the Trademark and the Domain Name, see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. See also, Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903: “[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks.”
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. For that reason, the Panel has carefully considered the factual allegations that have been made by the Complainant and are supported by the submitted evidence.
In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, such as:
(i) use or preparation to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) being commonly known by the Domain Name (as an individual, business or other organization) even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) making 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.
The Respondent does not seem to be affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that is the Respondent’s name or that the Respondent is commonly known as since the Domain Name immediately redirects to another domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, a licensee of the Complainant or that the Respondent has ever asked, or has ever been permitted in any way by the Complainant to register or use the Complainant’s marks, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services. From the screenshots that were provided by the Complainant, it follows that the Domain Name is directly resolving to a different domain name, which redirects to a third domain name. On the websites behind these domain names, highly similar services are offered as to the services of the Complainant.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Although the Respondent has registered the Domain Name before the Complainant acquired registered trademark rights in relation to the Trademark, the Respondent has registered the Domain Name years after the Complainant started using its trademark and the Panel finds that there is no other plausible explanation why the Respondent registered the Domain Name, other than the Respondent being aware at the date of registration of the Domain Name of the Complainant’s business and its website and intending to trade off the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant. See in this regard section 3.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users to its Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark.
Although the lack of a reply by the Respondent as such cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that there is use in bad faith, the cumulative circumstances as outlined in the decision are sufficient for the Panel to find that the use of the Domain Name by the Respondent is in bad faith.
In light of the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element of the Policy is met and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used 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.
Willem J. H. Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: October 10, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy