The Complainant is Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., United States of America (“United States”) (“Complainant”), represented internally.
The Respondent is Williams John, United States (“Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 17, 2020. On June 17, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 18, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint regarding the Mutual Jurisdiction on June 23, 2020. The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 15, 2020. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 is a very successful magazine publisher. Through its Conde Nast division, Complainant publishes such magazines as Vogue, Glamour, The New Yorker, Self, Vanity Fair, and GQ. Complaint, Annex C. Complainant has a web site to which the domain name Complainant and/or its subsidiaries has over 450 trademark applications and registrations for its CONDE NAST trademark. In the United States its CONDE NAST mark registrations date back to at least as early as October 30, 2012. Complaint, Annex D. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 11, 2020. Complaint, Annex A. Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to contact individuals through social media, using the actual names of employees of Complainant, and offering them a position at Conde Nast. Complaint, Annexes E, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, and E7. Respondent also forwarded to the contacted individuals fraudulent employment agreements. Complaint, Annex F. On May 11, 2020 Complainant learned from various individuals of Respondent’s contacts with them using the disputed domain name and offering them positions purportedly by actual employees of Complainant. On May 12, 2020, Complainant’s Security Investigation unit was notified of this fraudulent use of the disputed domain name. Complaint, Annex H. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CONDE NAST trademark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any respect, and Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings “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 domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s well-known CONDE NAST trademark followed by the English word “career.” Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CONDE NAST trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In the present case, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent has been using the disputed domain name as an email address, contacting various individuals through social media and offering them positions at one or more of the Conde Nast businesses, using the actual names of Conde Nast Human Resources employees as the alleged contact person. Such a practice is fraudulent. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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, M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: July 23, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy