The Complainant is G4S Plc, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Thomas Roberts, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2020. On January 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2020, 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 January 23, 2020, 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 January 24, 2020. 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 January 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2020. The Center appointed David Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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 The Complainant is a publicly-listed British security services company. The Complainant’s predecessor in interest was founded in 1901. The Complainant has been trading under the name “G4S” since 2004. The Complainant provides security solutions in over 100 countries throughout the world, and operates in a range of sectors, including financial institutions, transport and logistics, leisure and tourism, government, private energy and utilities, mining, and metals. For use in connection with its security services, the Complainant has registered, inter alia, the following trademarks: - Benelux Trademark Registration No. 0766792, G4S, registered on June 3, 2005; - International Trademark Registration No. 885912, G4S, registered on October 11, 2005; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00002391942, G4S GROUP 4 SECURICOR (figurative), registered on March 17, 2006; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 004645297, G4S (figurative), registered on May 15, 2007; and - United States Trademark Registration No. 3378800, G4S, registered on February 5, 2008. The Complainant has registered the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on November 19, 2019, using a privacy service. The disputed domain name resolves to a website (“the Respondent’s website”) titled “G4S INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS”. The Respondent’s website closely copies the look and feel of the Complainant’s website at “www.g4si.com”, identically reproducing substantial portions of the content (text and images) available on the Complainants website. On December 3, 2019, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent via the email address listed for the privacy service in the publicly-available WhoIs record. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts rights in the G4S trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s G4S trademark as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “L” and the word “tracking”. The Complainant contends that the addition of the word “tracking”, which is a descriptive word related to the Complainant’s business, does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name being connected to the Complainant and its trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not registered any trademark for “g4s”, and therefore does not hold rights to the disputed domain name The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the registration of its G4S trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name by some 15 years. The Complainant argues that the Respondent attempt to impersonate the Complainant proves that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business, in trying to impersonate the Complainant by using a highly similar website to that of the Complainant. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name includes the word “tracking”, which is directly associated with part of the Complainant’s business operations. Consequently, Internet users are likely to be misled by the disputed domain name into thinking that it is operated by or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website, by creating confusion amongst Internet users, and that the Respondent is generating revenue if Internet users decided to use the services purportedly offered by the Respondent. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter is further evidence of the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, name that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights to the G4S trademark, the registration details of which are provided in the factual-background section above. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s G4S trademark in its entirety as its leading element, followed by the letter “L” and the descriptive word “tracking”. The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and that such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel has considered the Complainant’s evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and agrees with the Complainant’s characterization of the Respondent’s website as an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. The limited functionality of the website itself leads the Panel infer that the Respondent’s website is likely intended to lend an air of authenticity to a broader illegitimate scheme aimed at targeting unsuspecting clients of the Complainant. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13: “Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., […] impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.” There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent is making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name as contemplated by the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Respondent has not come forward to otherwise assert bona fides in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is clear from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant, its rights in the G4S trademarks, as well as its business operations, specifically the Complainant’s international logistics services. By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has sought to create a misleading impression that the disputed domain name and the website that it resolves to are operated by or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As described above, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that reproduces the contents of the Complainant’s website at “www.g4si.com”. The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided clear evidence that the Respondent has sought to impersonate the Complainant. The Respondent has not filed a Response in the present proceeding, and there is no other evidence on record to suggest that the services purportedly offered via the Respondent’s website are bona fide. The Panel considers it likely that the Respondent’s website is a public-facing aspect of a broader illegitimate scheme aimed at targeting the Complainant’s clients. Prior UDRP panels have found that such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith, given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 David Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy