The Complainant is G4S Plc, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Ding Wang, 000, 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 July 20, 2020. On July 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 21, 2020, 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 the Complainant on July 24, 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 July 28, 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 July 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 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 British security services company founded in 1901. It has traded under its current name “G4S” since 2004. The Complainant is one of the world’s largest security solutions provider. It has over 550,000 employees and operates in over 100 countries across six continents. The Complainant’s sectors include transportation and logistics, leisure and tourism, private energy and utilities, and mining and metals. In 2019, the Complainant’s revenue was GBP 7.8 billion. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for G4S, inter alia, International trademark registration No. 885912, registered October 11, 2005, designating multiple jurisdictions, including China, where the Respondent resides. The Complainant is present in many countries, and have websites available in multiple languages and locations, including in China, where the Respondent appears to be situated. The Complainant is present at social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. According to the Complaint, the Domain Name was registered on June 20, 2020. At the time of the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a web page with pornographic and gambling contents. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is almost identical to its trademark, save the addition of the number “1”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to host and advertise pornographic content. This does not constitute a bona fide use. The Complainant believes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s activity and trademark, as the Complainant’s earliest trademark registration predates the Domain Name registration by almost 15 years, and the trademark enjoys global recognition. By registering the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent through the Registrar’s online contact form. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark G4S. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the number “1”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to host and advertise pornographic and gambling contents is not bona fide. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent by registering the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is firm evidence of bad faith. The same goes for the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, and that the Respondent used faulty postal address when registering the Domain Name. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: September 3, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy