The Complainant is RELX Group PLC, United Kingdom, represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S”).
The Respondent is Domain Admin / Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Christopher Chukwudebelu, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 17, 2021. On June 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 18, 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 June 21, 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 June 21, 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 June 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 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 multinational information and analytics company, headquartered in London, employing 33,000 employees across nearly 40 countries serving customers in approximately 180 countries worldwide. The predecessor of the Complainant is Reed Elsevier which re-branded itself as RELX in 2015. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the RELX trademark, including U.S. registration No. 5,075,594 RELX, registered on November 8, 2016 and International Registration No. 1262314 RELX, registered on February 26, 2015 and claiming protection in numerous countries in several international classes, including classes 36 for banking and finance services. The Complainant has a subsidiary named RELX Finance Limited and is the registered owner of several domain names, such as The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2021. The disputed domain resolves to a website for an apparent cryptocurrency investment company holding itself out as the Complainant’s subsidiary, RELX Finance Limited. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark RELX because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the element “financeltd” does not dispel confusion, but confuses the public into believing that the disputed domain name is intended to resolve to a website of its subsidiary Relx Finance Limited; - that the Complainant discovered that the disputed domain name has been misused to host a website for an apparent cryptocurrency investment company which appears to operate a Ponzi scheme by holding itself out as the Complainant’s subsidiary, Relx Finance Limited; - that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties, and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the RELX trademark; - that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to make Internet users believe that they are dealing with the Complainant’s subsidiary and to operate what appears to be a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a response. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 shown that it holds registrations in numerous jurisdictions for the RELX mark in several classes, including class 36 for financial services. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RELX, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the element “financeltd” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the trademark RELX is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. Moreover, the Complainant has provided credible evidence that the Respondent is misusing the disputed domain to host a website, which appears to operate a Ponzi scheme by holding itself out as the Complainant’s subsidiary, RELX Finance Limited. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 2.5.1). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has credibly shown that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights, because the “contact information” on the website posted by the Respondent under the disputed domain name lists the address of the Complainant’s global headquarters. The Complainant has also credibly shown that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to make Internet users believe that they are dealing with the Complainant’s subsidiary and thereby falsely providing credibility to what appear to be fraudulent financial activities. Moreover, the element “financeltd” in the disputed domain name confuses the public into believing that the disputed domain name is intended to resolve to a website of the Complainant’s subsidiary Relx Finance Limited. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy