The Complainant is Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) FZ LLC, United Arab Emirates (hereinafter, “Complainant”), represented by Clairmont Novus Avocats, France.
The Respondent is REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf , Iceland / YASSINE EL IDRISSI, Elmostadera, Morocco (hereinafter, jointly and severally) “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2021. On May 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 12, 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 Complainant on May 14, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 19, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 17, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 18, 2021. Respondent sent an informal response on June 18, 2021, after the Center notified the Respondent about its default. The informal response stated in its entirety, “i (sic) will delete this contetnt (sic) of the domaine (sic) name.” 4. Factual Background Complainant is an audiovisual group which specializes in the acquisition, production and broadcasting of films or information programs for distribution to and viewing in the United Arab Emirates, North Africa, European Union and North America. Complainant is the owner of the video platform named SHAHID. Complaint, Annex C, and the domain name Complainant owns several trademarks protected in many countries worldwide. Complaint, Annexes D and E. These include European Union trademarks for SHAID.NET, the earliest of which was filed on March 28, 2011 (the “SHAHID trademarks”). Complaint, Annexes F to H. These trademarks have been used to promote the Complainant’s SHAHID video platform. Complainant’s trademarks are well known, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Complaint, Annexes 11 and 12. Complainant also is the owner of the domain name Respondent registered the disputed domain name The disputed domain names resolve to a website that makes available for downloading or unlawful streaming an unauthorized version of Complainant’s movies and programs and otherwise distributes material in which Complainant owns copyrights. Complaint, Annex K. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its SHAHID trademarks. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith and in contravention of Complainant’s copyright laws. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions, other than to state that he would delete the content of the disputed domain names. 6. Discussion and Findings “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, The disputed domain names consist of Complainant’s long-standing SHAHID trademark (except for the “.net” element of the registered trademarks) together with the “4u” or “4uu”, one registered in respect to the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, one registered in respect to the gTLD “.download”, and one in respect to the gTLD “.life”. The Panel finds that as each of the disputed domain names feature Complainant’s SHAHID trademark, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the almost impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent uses all of the disputed domain names to resolve to web sites which feature Complainant’s copyrighted works, never having sought permission to use Complainant’s registered trademark or its copyrighted works. Respondent has tacitly admitted his bad faith conduct. The Panel finds that Respondent had registered and is using the disputed domain names 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 M. Scott Donahey
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: June 29, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy