The Complainant is Dell Inc., United States of America, represented by AZB & Partners, India.
The Respondent is Anirban Roy, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2021. On April 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 12, 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 April 16, 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 April 17, 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 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2021. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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, established in 1984, is one of the world’s largest seller of computer systems. The Complainant sells more than 100,000 systems every day to customers in 180 countries, including India. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark DELL, which has been used since 1988 and is registered worldwide, for example in India on June 5, 1992, under No. 575115. The products of the Complainant have been widely available in India since 1993. The Complainant also operates the websites at “dell.com” and “dell.co.in”. The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2021. The disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s logo and the message “Dell laptop service in Kolkata”, promoting repair services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with intent of hosting a website misrepresenting to the public that it is associated with the Complainant. The Respondent’s adoption of the Complainant’s well-known trademark in order to project themselves as the “Dell Service Center” is a violation of the Complainant’s rights in and to the trademark DELL. The Complainant also provides post sale services such as maintenance and repair. The Respondent has no right to use the trademark DELL of the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or permitted the adoption and use of the trademark DELL. The Respondent cannot claim to have any rights or legitimate interests in the trademark DELL. The Respondent is taking advantage of innocent customers who may not enquire about the authenticity of the Respondent or its relationship with the Complainant. The disputed domain name is worded in such a manner that it appears to be the services center of the Complainant in Kolkata. The Respondent has had no legitimate reason to adopt the trademark of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “The applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. Furthermore, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The disputed domain name is otherwise identical with the Complainant’s trademark, with the exception that the words “service”, “center”, “in” and “Kolkata” are also included in the disputed domain name. The words are merely dictionary and geographical terms and meaningless additions to the Complainant’s trademark DELL and as such insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This means that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: “(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.” Considering that the Complainant has been using and registering its trademark worldwide for over thirty years and that the trademark has been held by previous UDRP panels to be well known, it is evident that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website but was earlier used to promote the Respondent’s computer repair and maintenance services in Kolkata, India. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is not in active use currently, see e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domain eRegistration,WIPO Case No. D2018-1994. This, however, does not prevent the finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0. Considering that the Panel has found that the Complainant’s trademark is well known, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, there are no obvious good faith or legitimate uses to which the disputed domain name may be put, the Panel considers, on balance, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In addition, while the Respondent’s website referred to a business “locally owned and operating in the Kolkata area”, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name and its website created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, leading the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 9, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy