The Complainant is LLC Investment Company “Freedom Finance”, Russian Federation, internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2019. On September 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 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 received the first amendment to the Complaint from the Complainant on September 25, 2019. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 25, 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 a second amendment to the Complaint on the same date.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the first and second amendments to 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 September 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2019.
The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 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 located in the Russian Federation and provides financial services. The Complainant owns FREEDOM FINANCE and device trademark registered in the Russian Federation, certificate No. 553826, registration date October 6, 2015.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 6, 2017, and resolves into a web site containing negative information about the Complainant in Russian language. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name is identical to the word part of the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The web site at the disputed domain name contains untrue negative information about the Complainant, which is confirmed by several court decisions. The Complainant has rights in its trademark, which was registered prior to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant, since the web site at the disputed domain name contains untrue negative information about the Complainant, which is confirmed by several court decisions. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.pro” in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity test (see, e.g., Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn,WIPO Case No. D2017-0275).
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the word part of the Complainant’s trademark.
According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , 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. The Panel finds that addition of hyphen to the disputed domain name does not preclude finding its similarity with the Complainant’s trademark.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark.
The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent in the present case is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its right or legitimate interest (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).
According to section 2.6.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, to support fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), the respondent’s criticism must be genuine and noncommercial; in a number of UDRP decisions where a respondent argues that its domain name is being used for free speech purposes, the panel has found this to be primarily a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity, or tarnishment. The Panel finds that in the present case, the disputed domain name is primarily used to tarnish the Complainant and its trademark with untrue negative information as confirmed by several court decisions, which confirms no rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s trademark. In the present case, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to place negative information about the Complainant clearly confirms the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark while registering the disputed domain name, which confirms the bad faith.
UDRP paragraph 4(b)(iii) provides that the following non-exclusive scenario constitutes evidence of the respondent’s bad faith: the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the competitor. According to section 3.1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, panels have applied the notion of a “competitor” beyond the concept of an ordinary commercial or business competitor to also include the concept of “a person who acts in opposition to another” for some means of commercial gain, direct or otherwise. In the present case, the Panel finds that content of the web site at the disputed domain name providing mostly negative and untrue information about the Complainant, as confirmed by several court decisions, confirms that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used primarily to disrupt business of the Complainant, which evidences bad faith.
Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy