The Complainant is Stylight Gmbh, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0155438488, Canada / Kimber Allbright, Stylight Home, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 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 September 23, 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 September 28, 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 October 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 22, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 23, 2019. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 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 Stylight Gmbh was established in 2008 and provides an online platform which, inter alia, offers fashion and home and living products from over 100 online shops. According to the Complainant’s allegations, currently over 6 million people around the globe use its different platforms, the Complainant being present in numerous countries worldwide. The STYLIGHT mark is an invented portmanteau name created by the Complainant from the combination of “style” and “light” words. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for STYLIGHT mark worldwide including: - the European Union Trademark STYLIGHT registration number 007416051, filed on November 24, 2008 and registered on June 16, 2009, for goods and services in International Classes 25, 35, 38 and 42; and - the International Trademark STYLIGHT, registration number 1011334, registered on May 14, 2009, for goods in International Classes 25, 35, 38 and 42. The Complainant holds and uses a number of Internet domain name registrations which wholly incorporate the STYLIGHT mark, including The disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark STYLIGHT with an additional descriptive term, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the first Respondent is a privacy service known for shielding infringing domain name registrations and has been involved in numerous alternative dispute resolution proceedings, mostly decided against it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant holds rights in the STYLIGHT trademark. The disputed domain name Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.net”, “.info”, “.com”, “.org”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license or authorization whatsoever to use the mark STYLIGHT, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. Under the Policy, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. See section 2.1 of theWIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant trademark is distinctive and it is registered since 2008 being significantly used worldwide. The disputed domain name was created in 2019 and incorporates the Complainant’s mark with an additional term “home”. For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark. At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage advertising the launch of the Respondent’s website. While such use may not fit perfectly within any of the circumstances listed in the paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, this paragraph is non-exhaustive, “without limitation”. The unauthorized registration of a domain name containing a clearly identifiable distinctive mark – by a party with no connection to the mark – is, in the circumstances of this case, sufficiently redolent of bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under a privacy service and refused to participate in the present proceeding in order to provide arguments in its favour. Having in view the other circumstances of this case, such facts constitute further evidence of bad faith behaviour. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Marilena Comanescu
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: November 13, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy