The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Jason Hanley, United Kingdom, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2019. On August 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 20, 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 August 21, 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 25, 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 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2019. Several emails have been received from the Respondent, however, no formal response was filed with the Center. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on October 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 The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated and part of the JLL group. The JLL group is a services and investment management firm specializing in real estate with activities in more than 80 countries. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through websites under its The Complainant owns the JLL and JONES LANG LASALLE trademark in the European Union, the United States and Canada (e.g. EUIPO registration No. 010603447 registered on August 31, 2012 and No. 001126291 registered on June 13, 2000). The disputed domain name The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In his various emails he confirmed that he owned the disputed domain name for 10 years and had offered to sell it to the Complainant multiple times. The Respondent argues that he would be at financial loss if the disputed domain name would be taken from him. Further, the Respondent asserts that he directs the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website and that he intends to create a website called “Japan Likes Lunch” for reviewing lunches. 6. Discussion and Findings On the basis of the facts and the evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the trademark JLL in numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union. The JLL trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). Therefore, the confusing similarity is not dispelled by the addition of the term “eu”. Moreover, the abbreviation “eu” (European Union) is a geographical term, relating to a region in which the Complainant has ongoing business activities and registered trademarks. It is the consensus view of UDPR panels that the addition of such geographical terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8). In particular, the use of a well-known trademark in its entirety together with a geographical term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy (see Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas,WIPO Case No. D2007-0768). The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name, given that the Respondent redirects the disputed domain name to the website of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant, nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark to redirect users to the Complainant’s website does not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3). The intended future use of the disputed domain name to create a website for lunch reviews with the name of “Japan Likes Lunches” is not reasonable and lacks credibility (not being supported by any evidence), especially given the inclusion of the geographical term “eu” in the disputed domain name, and thus does not constitute a legitimate interest under the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). The conclusion that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is also supported by the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name on “www.sedo.com”. In view of the above, the Panel concludes that there are no indications of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent claims to be a tech entrepreneur, and redirects Internet users from the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website. Redirecting the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website and the absence of any conceivable good faith use is evidence of bad faith insofar as the Respondent retains control over the redirection, thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 and FXCM Global Services LLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, Whoisguard Inc. / Jenny Sohia,WIPO Case No. D2018-1111). Further, the fact that the disputed domain name is parked does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad faith. The fact that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known, the Respondent has failed to show good faith use and has tried to sell the disputed domain name supports the inference of bad faith in this case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 name Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: October 24, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy