The Complainant is Multi Media, LLC c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Arkadiy Dudov, Russian Federation. 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 27, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 29, 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 29, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 29, 2021. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 27, 2021. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 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, Multi Media, LLC, owns and operates the website “www.chaturbate.com” and has used the disputed domain name for several years in connection with the provision of streaming audio, visual, and audiovisual material and other entertainment services via the World Wide Web. The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the CHATURBATE mark. The Complainant is inter alia the owner of: US Registration CHATURBATE (word) No. 4,288,943 registered on February 12, 2013; The website “www.chaturbate.com” is one of the most popular websites in the world, rating at number 48 among the most popular websites in the world according to Alexa Internet. The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2020. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that mirrors the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHATURBATE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; The Complainant has established rights in the CHATURBATE trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the CHATURBATE trademark preceded by the letters “ru” and a hyphen. This Panel believes that this addition of the letters “ru” (which here appears to be meant as a geographical indicator for Russian Federation) in the disputed domain name is irrelevant in assessing the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Pursuant to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) which states: “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.” Indeed, the Complainant’s mark is immediately recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that mirrors the website of the Complainant, and in addition, it appears that the disputed domain name is also used to sign up users for the services of the Complainant’s direct competitors. Further, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Chaturbate” or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, alleging any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, consisting of the CHATURBATE trademark with the added letters “ru”, and together with the contents of the Respondent’s website, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s CHATURBATE trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. Indeed, the Complainant gives several basis for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Particularly relevant are the Complainant’s unchallenged assertions (which the Panel accepts and partially reproduces below) that: The Respondent could not have been unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The term “Chaturbate” is an invented word and there is no obvious connection with streaming and audiovisual services. It is therefore unlikely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name without the intention of invoking a misleading association with the Complainant. In fact, it is evident from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s CHATURBATE trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to mirror the Complainant’s renowned website constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has used a privacy shield registration service for the disputed domain name, and in addition it appears that the Respondent has also provided an incorrect address, as attested by the DHL notification message (of “invalid address”) received by the Center. While the use of a privacy or proxy registration service is not in and of itself proof of bad faith, it is the Panel’s opinion that in the present case the use of a privacy shield, combined with the elements previously discussed, further indicates bad faith registration and use. Finally, the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, nor has it responded to (or denied) the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name Fabrizio Bedarida
US Registration CHATURBATE (word) No. 4,988,208 registered on June 28, 2016.
(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
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy