Complainant is Unilabs AB, Switzerland, represented by Adlex Solicitors, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / Xian Xing Hao, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 23, 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 Complainant on October 31, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 1, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 8, 2019. On November 27, 2019, the Center re-notified the Complaint to the Parties. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 18, 2019. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 2020. 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 Complainant, incorporated in Sweden in 1968, describes itself as “one of the largest diagnostic providers in Europe, offering diagnostic and laboratory medicine facilities, including imaging and pathology services.” According to the Complaint, Complainant has over 12,000 employees, with over 250 laboratories worldwide, which carry out over 125 million laboratory tests annually. Its annual sales exceed EUR 1 billion. Complainant alleges that it has used the trademark WE CARE BIG (and CARE BIG) since 2016. Annexed to the Complaint are various screenshots of Complainant’s use of WE CARE BIG and CARE BIG (most examples are the latter) on its websites, including at the website to which the Domain Name resolved back when Complainant owned it, in connection with a marketing campaign to promote its services. Complainant previously owned the Domain Name in 2017 and 2018, and operated the website accessible via the Domain Name. In 2018, Complainant decided to merge its WE CARE BIG website with its main website at “www.unilabs.com”. On some unspecified date but in the course of this migration, Complainant alleges, it inadvertently allowed the Domain Name registration to lapse. The Domain Name was registered by Respondent on June 21, 2019. The Domain Name resolves to a website which appears to be a Chinese language gambling and pornography site. Complainant has presented two other instances in which it appears that Respondent registered apparently lapsed domain names and redirected those domain names to essentially the same website as the one to which the Domain Name currently resolves. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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 Panel concludes that Complainant has unregistered trademark rights in the marks WE CARE BIG and CARE BIG through use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is identical to the WE CARE BIG mark and confusingly similar to the CARE BIG mark. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a 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 Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to explain why he registered the Domain Name. Based on the undisputed evidence in the record, Respondent is using the Domain Name for an apparently commercial gambling and pornography site. The Panel cannot conceive of any reason why the phrase “we care big” would be associated with gambling or pornography, and the Respondent has not provided any. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii). Complainant has provided evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names reflective of other parties’ trademarks and pointing those domain names to his own website. This constitutes a pattern of bad-faith preclusive registration under the Policy. Besides, Respondent is using the Domain Name for an apparently commercial gambling and pornography site, which constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established 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 Domain Name Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy