The Complainant is KB Trading Consultants Ltd, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by J A Kemp, UK
The Respondent is Ben george, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2021. On March 19, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 25, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Upon the Complainant’s request, the proceeding was suspended before the commencement on May 30, 2021, for purposes of settlement discussions concerning the disputed domain names. The Complainant requested to reinstitute the proceedings on April 27, 2021 and simultaneously filed an amended Complaint on April 27, 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 April 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on May 19, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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 company registered in Scotland, UK. It is a provider of financial and foreign exchange trading services including training courses. The Complainant is the owner of Benelux trademark registration number 1435656 for the word mark KB TRADING CONSULTANTS, registered on February 11, 2021 in International Classes 36 and 41. Both of the disputed domain names were registered on May 11, 2020. At the time of filing the complaint, both disputed domain names redirected to a website at “www.bsappsfx.com” which related to a financial services business. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name The Complainant states that it commenced trading in November 2018 under the name “KN Trading Consultants”. It states that it began rebranding as KB TRADING CONSULTANTS in July 2019 and exhibits social media posts dated between July and October 2019 announcing the rebranding and promoting the business under its new name. The Complainant states that it has a significant presence on social media with over 21,900 YouTube subscribers and 16,700 followers on Instagram. It provides evidence of its business activities and its social media accounts. The Complainant submits that both the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its KB TRADING CONSULTANTS trademark. It contends that the inclusion of the word “the” in the second of the disputed domain names does not diminish that confusing similarity. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its KB TRADING CONSULTANTS trademark, that the Respondent has no independent rights in that name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant produces evidence that the full identity of registrant of the disputed domain names is a Mr. Barker, who is the proprietor of the “Bsappsfx” business to which the Respondent’s website resolves. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant, that the name KB TRADING CONSULTANTS is inherently distinctive, and that the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain names upon becoming aware of the Complainant’s rebranding. The Complainant contends in particular that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily to prevent the Complainant from doing so and to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is attempting to divert Internet users to its competing website, for the purpose of commercial gain, by creating confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. 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: (i) that the disputed domain names 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 Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark KB TRADING CONSULTANTS. While that trademark was registered almost two years after the disputed domain names, that is not a relevant consideration for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, which comprises a threshold test of the Complainant’s entitlement to bring the Complaint. The disputed domain name In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain names, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain names, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the mark KB TRADING CONSULTANTS is distinctive in nature and denotes the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds further that, while the Complainant did not register a trademark until February 2021, it began to rebrand as KB TRADING CONSULTANTS from July 2019 and publicized that rebranding on social media. In the circumstances, there is no conclusion that the Panel can reasonably reach other than that the Respondent became aware of the Complainant’s rebranding as KB TRADING CONSULTANTS and registered the disputed domain names to prevent the Complainant from doing so (paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy), to disrupt the business of a competitor (paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy) and/or to divert Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services to its own, competing, website for commercial gain (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As discussed in section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), a respondent who registers a domain name to capitalize on a nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark may be found to have acted in bad faith. The Panel also notes the Respondent’s more recent diversion of the disputed domain name The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: June 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy