The Complainant is Majid Al Futtaim Holding LLC, United Arab Emirates (the “UAE”), represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal, Egypt.
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America (“USA”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 24, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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 November 27, 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 December 2, 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 proceeding commenced on December 3, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 2019. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 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 The Complainant is a holding company with a principal place of business in Dubai, operating through three major subsidiaries (Majid Al Futtaim Properties, Majid Al Futtaim Retail, and Majid Al Futtaim Ventures). The Complainant has been conducting business since 1992 under the trade mark MAJID AL FUTTAIM (the “Trade Mark”) in various industries including property development, retailing, leisure and entertainment, food and beverages. The Complainant operates in 15 international markets (UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Kenya, Armenia, and Georgia) and employs more than 43,000 people. The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the Trade Mark in English and Arabic script in several jurisdictions, including Egyptian registration No. 96038 with a registration date of June 7, 1995. The Complainant owns the domain name The Respondent is a company incorporated in the State of Delaware in the USA. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website providing sponsored links to third party websites, some of which offer similar goods and services to those offered by the Complainant under the Trade Mark (the “Website”). The Website also contains a “Buy this Domain” link. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. The disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Trade Mark – the only difference being the missing letter “t” from the word “futtaim” (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in connection with the Website, to obtain pay-per-click revenue via sponsored links, including to websites providing goods or services similar to those provided by the Complainant under the Trade Mark. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of the use of the disputed domain name and the offer to sell the disputed domain name highlighted in Section B above, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out under paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 disputed domain name Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy