WIPO Domain Name Decision D2020-1344 for dream-marriages.com, dreams-marriage.com, dreams-singles.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dream Marriage Group, Inc. v. Romantic Lines LP, Vadim Parhomchuk Case No. D2020-1344 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dream Marriage Group, Inc., United States of America, represented by The Internet Law Group, United States of America.

The Respondent is Romantic Lines LP, Vadim Parhomchuk, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names , , and are registered with Omnis Network, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2020. On May 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 28, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name(s) which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 3, 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 amendment to the Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment 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 June 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2020.

The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 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 the owner of the United States trademark registration No. 3760949 for DREAM MARRIAGE (word mark), filed on July 31, 2009, and registered on March 16, 2010, claiming first use on December 17, 2003, for dating services and matchmaking services in international class 45; and of the United States trademark application No. 88859642, for DREAM SINGLES, filed on April 3, 2020, claiming first use on September 12, 2017, for dating services, matchmaking services and Internet-based dating services in international class 45.

The Complainant provides dating and matchmaking services on the websites published at the domain names , registered on December 17, 2003, and , registered on September 12, 2017.

The disputed domain names and were registered on November 22, 2019, while was registered on July 6, 2018. At the time of the drafting of this Decision, the disputed domain names and resolve to inactive webpages while is pointed to a website offering dating and matchmaking services.

According to the screenshots submitted by the Complainant, which have not been challenged by the Respondent, the disputed domain name was redirected, before the filing of the Complaint, to a website offering dating and matchmaking service under the sign “FIND BRIDE”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks DREAM MARRIAGE and DREAM SINGLES in which it claims rights as they reproduce the trademarks in their entirety, with the mere addition of the pluralization of the words “dream” and “marriage” and the generic Top Level Domain “.com”. The Complainant also states that (aside from its claimed DREAM SINGLES mark) the dominant features and meaning of the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE are recognizable within the disputed domain name , as it includes the identical term “dream” and the words “marriage” and “singles” both suggest dating and matchmaking services.

With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, the Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names long after the Complainant registered its official domain names for both trademarks DREAM MARRIAGE and DREAM SINGLES. It highlights that, at the bottom of its website corresponding to the disputed domain name , a video advertises the Respondent’s own competing “FIND BRIDE” service, and states that the Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain names for commercial gain to divert Internet users who look for the Complainant’s websites and make typing errors. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain names for commercial gain to prevent the Complainant from registering them or in the hope of selling them to the Complainant in the future.

As to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s competing business. The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent intentionally created, for commercial gain, a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and its competing service.

The Complainant informs the Panel that the Respondent has been known to engage in similar conduct also with other dating sites, many of which appear to be plural variations or misspellings of other brands that the Respondent does not own such as (versus ), (versus ), and (versus ). B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE based on the trademark registration cited under section 4 above and the related trademark certificate submitted as annex 4 to the Complaint.

As highlighted in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement, and the threshold test for confusing similarity typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.

In the case at hand, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE as they reproduce the trademark in its entirety with the sole addition of a letter “s” to the words “dream” and “marriage” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which can be disregarded when comparing the similarities between a domain name and a trademark.

Moreover, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the mere addition of letters does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Furthermore, as stated in Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.

The Complainant relies on its United States trademark application for DREAM SINGLES to assert confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with its trademark. As noted also in Section 1.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0., “a pending trademark application would not by itself establish trademark rights within the meaning of UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i)”.

However, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE since it reproduces the first and dominant part of the Complainant’s trademark “dream”, with the mere addition of a letter “s”, and both the words “singles” and “marriage”, combined with the Complainant’s trademark, recall the dating and matchmaking services offered by the Complainant.

The Panel also finds that in addition to the above-mentioned application, the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved – clearly promoting competing services – and the Respondent’s registration of the two additional domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark DREAM MARRIAGE support the finding of confusing similarity (and clear targeting of the Complainant by the Respondent) in this case.

As indicated in Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant’s mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant’s reputation, or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant’s mark within the same proceeding, may support a finding of confusing similarity”.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark DREAM MARRIAGE in which the Complainant has established rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is well-established that the burden of proof lies on the Complainant. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially onerous, since proving a negative can be difficult considering such information is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the Respondent.

Accordingly, in line with previous UDRP decisions, it is sufficient that the Complainant show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in order to shift the burden of production on the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In the case at hand, by not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance that could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel notes that there is no relation, disclosed to the Panel or otherwise apparent from the record, between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, there is no indication before the Panel that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.

As mentioned above, the disputed domain name has not been pointed to an active website while evidence has been submitted that the other two disputed domain names and have been pointed to websites promoting purported dating and matchmaking services similar to the ones provided by the Complainant under the confusingly similar domain names previously registered and used by the Complainant and .

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the 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 the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondentwebsite or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.

In the case at hand, the Panel finds that, in light of i) the prior registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark DREAM MARRIAGE and of its domain names and , ii) the confusingly similarity of the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s domain names and iii) the Respondent’s use of at least two of the disputed domain names in connection with active websites promoting competing services, the Respondent very likely registered the disputed domain name having the Complainant’s trademark in mind.

Furthermore, in light of the mere one letter difference denoting singular or plural between the disputed domain names and and the Complainant’s registered trademark DREAM MARRIAGE, the Panel considers this case a classic example of typosquatting (Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection,WIPO Case No. D2006-1044). This conclusion was also reached in Allied Building Products Corp v. Alliedbuildingproducts.com c/o Whois Identity Shield,WIPO Case No. D2006-0833 (“it is therefore a reasonable inference from this that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s business and wanted to exploit the name to divert Internet traffic from it”).

In view of the use of the disputed domain names and in connection with websites promoting services competing with the ones provided by the Complainant under the confusingly similar domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, likely for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by causing a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites and the services promoted therein, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

As to the disputed domain name , which has not been pointed to an active website according to the records, the Panel notes that prior UDRP panels have frequently found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name (passive holding) does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances, as decided, inter alia, in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

In view of i) the confusingly similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark DREAM MARRIAGE and the Complainant’s domain name , ii) the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain names; iii) the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint; and iv) the Respondent’s use of the other disputed domain names to promote services which compete with the ones provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use as per section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

As an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith, the Panel notes that there has been no Response and in this case, as stated in Sports Holdings, Inc v. Whois ID Theft Protection,WIPO Case No. D2006-1146, “it is open for the Panel to infer a prima facie case of bad faith registration. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has used the present domain name in a website promoting services identical to those supplied by the Complainant, from which the Respondent (or a related third party) presumably derives or intends to derive revenue. This is not conduct consistent with registration and use in good faith”.

Lastly, according to Section 3.1.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration. This may include a scenario where a respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark-abusive domain names, even where directed at the same brand owner. A pattern of abuse has also been found where the respondent registers, simultaneously or otherwise, multiple trademark-abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of individual brand owners”.

The Panel finds paragraph 4(b)(ii) applicable in this case since the Respondent has registered three domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks in order to prevent the Complainant from using their trademarks in corresponding domain names.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith according to 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 names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.

Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2020

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy