The Complainant is Verimatrix, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by KPPB LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Ying Xiang Hu, Jiang Men Shi Hua Ji Ri Yong Pin You Xian Gong Si, 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 February 23, 2021. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 24, 2021, 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 February 25, 2021 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 March 2, 2021. 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 March 4, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 2021. 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 corporation located in California, United States. It is a provider of digital security products. The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark VERIMATRIX, including United States trademark number 3024002 for the word mark VERIMATRIX, registered on December 6, 2005 in International Class 9. The disputed domain name was registered on January 17, 2021. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.verimatrix.live” which is headed “verimatrix” and appears to offer items of jewelry for sale online. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has used the VERIMATRIX trademark in commerce since August 31, 2002. It refers to its website at “www.verimatrix.com”, but otherwise provides no evidence of the public recognition or reputation of its trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its VERIMATRIX trademark. It says that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and that trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it had never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its VERIMATRIX mark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. As to the Respondent’s website, the Complainant submits that this is not genuine, as evidenced by the facts that no correspondence address other than the word “address” is stated, the phone number “1-234-567-9999” connects only to a voicemail service and the remainder of the website appears to be derived from a template. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent could not legitimately use the disputed domain name, being identical to its trademark, to sell products that are unrelated to the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that registrants have a continuing duty to ensure that a domain name is not in violation of third-party rights. It further contends that the Respondent knew or ought to have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights because the Complainant had used the VERIMATRIX mark in commerce for over 15 years before the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is guilty of “opportunistic bad faith” by registering a domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and that it has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with that trademark. The Complainant requests the 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 succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark VERIMATRIX. The disputed domain name is identical to that trademark but for the gTLD “.live”, which is to be disregarded for the purposes of comparison. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s VERIMATRIX trademark and that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use that trademark. In these circumstances, the question for the Panel is whether the Respondent’s website at “www.verimatrix.live” constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services or, alternatively, represents an attempt to target the Complainant’s trademark and to take unfair advantage of the commercial goodwill attaching to that trademark. In this case, the Complainant contends that the Respondent knew or ought to have known of its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, although it provides no evidence of the public knowledge or reputation of that trademark beyond details of its trademark registrations and its website URL. Nevertheless, the Panel makes the following findings: (1) The trademark VERIMATRIX is inherently distinctive in nature and has no obvious meaning in commerce other than to refer to the Complainant and its business. (2) The disputed domain name includes the gTLD “.live”, which has no obvious relevance to the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds it highly unlikely in the circumstances that the Respondent had not discovered, prior to its registration of the disputed domain name, that the corresponding “.com” domain name was already in use by the Complainant. (3) There is no indication on the Respondent’s website of why the name VERIMATRIX has been chosen for the Respondent’s online jewelry store. (4) The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that other elements of the Respondent’s website raise doubts about its authenticity as a commercial venture: the Panel has in mind, in particular, the lack of a contact address and the use of the telephone number “1-234-567-9999”. (5) The Respondent has chosen not to respond to this proceeding, and has not therefore disputed any of the Complainant’s submissions or provided any explanation of its own for its choice of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and for the purpose of targeting that trademark and that its website does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Similar factors inform the Panel’s consideration of the question of bad faith. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and is inherently misleading. The Panel can see no legitimate reason for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name and concludes therefore that the Respondent registered it in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and for the purpose of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in that trademark, namely, by diverting Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that they were visiting a website operated or authorized by the Complainant. The Panel finds further that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 13, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy