Complainants are Reliance BP Mobility Limited, India, Reliance Industries Ltd., India, and BP p.l.c, United Kingdom, represented by Anand & Anand, India.
Respondent is Direct Privacy - 94ddf, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 14655386, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2020. On August 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 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 information for the disputed domain name. On September 7, 2020, Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint regarding the Mutual Jurisdiction paragraph in 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 15, 2020. The Center appointed Roberto Bianchi as the sole panelist in this matter on October 26, 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 First Complainant, Reliance BP Mobility Limited, is a joint venture of the Second Complainant and the Third Complainant signed in August, 2019. The Second Complainant, Reliance Industries Limited or RIL, is a limited company incorporated under the laws of India. RIL operates in the field of oil and gas exploration and production, petroleum refining and marketing, petrochemicals, retail and telecommunications. RIL is a Fortune 500 company and one of India’s largest private sector corporations. RIL and its group companies form the RIL group. The Third Complainant, BP p.l.c., is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, with operations in Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Asia and Africa. The company is active in the oil and gas industry including exploration, production, refining, distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, et cetera. Complainants own, inter alia, the following trademarks: SECOND COMPLAINANT – Reliance Industries Limited JURISDICTION TRADEMARK REGISTRATION NO. REGISTRATION DATE CLASSES INDIA JIO 2466079 January 24, 2013 4 INDIA JIO 2391603 September 7, 4 INDIA JIO 2391635 September 7, 35 THIRD COMPLAINANT – BP p.l.c. JURISDICTION TRADEMARK REGISTRATION NO. REGISTRATION DATE CLASSES UNITED KINGDOM BP 1248852 November 11, 2003 1, 4, 9 and 25 UNITED KINGDOM BP 1418318 February 1, 2006 6, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants Complainants contend as follows: The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ registered and well-known trademarks JIO and BP in its entirety and is thus identical and confusingly similar to such marks, in which Complainants have statutory rights as well as rights in common law by virtue of long and continuous use. The Second Complainant, RIL, adopted the JIO trademark in 2011 and the Third Complainant BP p.l.c. adopted the BP trademark in 1996. Through a joint venture, Complainants commenced using the brand name JioBP in August, 2019. The trademarks JIO, BP and JioBP are arbitrary marks which solely denote the goods and services of Complainants. Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The use of the trademarks JIO and BP in the disputed domain name is made with the sole purpose to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of Complainants. This is a classic case of cybersquatting wherein Respondent by using Complainants’ trademarks JIO and BP in the disputed domain name in an unauthorized manner is portraying to the general public that Respondent is associated with Complainants. Respondent is not a licensee and/or an authorized agent of Complainants nor is in any other way authorized to use Complainants’ trademarks JIO, BP or the JioBP brand. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent has presently parked a webpage consisting of pay-per-click advertisements to earn illegal profit, being completely aware that an unwary customer, owing to the identity of the disputed domain name and Complainants’ brand JIOBP, will associate the disputed domain name as belonging to Complainants’ joint venture. In view of the tremendous media coverage of Complainants’ joint venture under the brand JioBP, Respondent is bound to have knowledge of Complainants’ trademarks. The sole purpose behind registering the disputed domain name is only to profit upon the goodwill attached to Complainants’ trademarks by preventing Complainants from registering the disputed domain name to which they have full legal rights. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization. In view of the prior rights of Complainants in the trademarks JIO since as early as 2011, BP since before 1996 and JioBP since August, 2019, and the enormous goodwill and reputation vested in the trademarks, the sole purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to take undue advantage of Complainants’ goodwill and reputation, looking for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers and tarnish the trademark. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent had constructive notice of Complainants’ rights in the trademarks JIO and BP, much prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name, by virtue of Complainants’ widespread use and reputation worldwide. The disputed domain name was registered in November, 2019, i.e., shortly after the public announcement of Complainants’ joint venture under the brand JioBP. Complainants currently do not operate any website for its proposed joint venture under the brand JioBP. By registering the disputed domain name, Respondent is deliberately preventing Complainants from reflecting their trademarks in a corresponding domain name. Further, Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its goods or services on its website. Respondent is causing dilution of the trademarks JIO and BP in the eyes of the general public. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar By submitting printouts taken from the corresponding official trademark databases, Complainants have shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Second Complainant owns the JIO trademark, and that the third Complainant owns the BP trademark. See section 4 above. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ JIO and BP trademarks, in that order, adding the “.com” Top Level Domain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the JIO mark, in which the Second Complainant has rights, and to the BP mark, in which the Third Complainant has rights. The first requirement of the Policy is thus met. B. Rights and Legitimate Interests Complainants have shown with a printout of the website at the disputed domain name taken on August 27, 2020, that the only content of the website was a list of links in Hindi displayed under a legend in English stating, “jiobp.com This domain is under construction”. Annexure K to the Complaint. On November 6, 2020, the Panel, in exercise of its general powers under Rules paragraph 10(a), visited the website at the disputed domain name and confirmed that the website continues to display - under the same legend - a list of “related links”, none of which appear to be in the least related to any of Complainants. Each of these links, in turn, redirects to a commercial website.1 Complainants have shown that the registration of the disputed domain name was made in November 2019, thus opportunistically following the public announcement of Complainants’ joint venture under the brand JIOBP. It is therefore clear that the website at the disputed domain name is generating click-through income for Respondent, thus extracting a profit from the visits of Internet users presumably looking for Complainants, their JIO and BP marks and JioBP joint venture. In the view of the Panel, such parasitic use of the disputed domain name is neither a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a fair or legitimate noncommercial use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii). Nor is there any evidence that the registrant of the disputed domain name, i.e., Respondent, is being known by the disputed domain name, which excludes the application of Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). Complainants have succeeded in raising a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, Respondent failed to submit any explanation for its reasons to register and use the disputed domain name as shown. The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainants have shown that the registration of their JIO and BP marks predates the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. See section 4 above. Complainants also have shown that the registration of the disputed domain name was made in November 2019, after they had publicly announced their JioBP joint venture agreement in August 2019. It is therefore clear that Respondent knew of, and had in mind Complainants, their marks and joint venture at the time of registering the disputed domain names. As also shown above, the website at the disputed domain name is being used to display a list of “related links” resolving to commercial websites of businesses totally unrelated to any of Complainants. Most likely, such use is generating click-through income from the visits of Internet users presumably looking for Complainants, their well-known marks and/or their JioBP joint venture. In the Panel’s view by using the disputed domain name as described, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ JIO and BP marks and JioBP joint venture as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of products or services on its website or location. This is a circumstance of registration and use in bad faith, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was 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, Roberto Bianchi 1 The “related links” are automatically generated according to the IP of the visitor’s computer. During the visit of the Panel, based in Buenos Aires, the related links resolved to websites of businesses in Buenos Aires and other Spanish-speaking locations.
2012
2012
Sole Panelist
Date: November 9, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy