The Complainant is Omega SA, Switzerland, represented internally.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 24, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain names. The Center verified that 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 July 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 23, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on August 31, 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 well-known watch company. It owns the trademark OMEGA and enjoys the benefit of trademark registration for that mark in many jurisdictions around the world, e.g., International Trademark Reg. No. 132141, registered on August 11, 1947. The disputed domain names were registered on May 28, 2021. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to pages containing monetized pay-per-click advertisements. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issues A. Consolidation of Multiple Disputed Domain Names The Complainant has requested that all 47 of the disputed domain names be consolidated into this one case. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder”. The Registrar in this case confirmed the disputed domain names were all registered by Domain administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD. Furthermore, it is clear that all of the disputed domain names are under common control. They were all registered on the same date, with the same Registrar, and share certain patterns in their formation, e.g., employing the same or similar patterns of misspelling the words “omega” and “watches”. All of the disputed domain names refer to the identical name server. Accordingly, the Panel grants the request to consolidate. 6.2. Substantive Issues To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely, that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the mark OMEGA, as evidenced by its trademark registrations referred to above. The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to that mark. The various disputed domain names contain the OMEGA mark exactly or some minor misspelling, together with either the word “watches” (the Complainant’s best known product) or a minor misspelling of that word. The Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant asserts the following: - there are no signs that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; - the Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant or its business activities; - the Complainant has not granted a license or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks or register the disputed domain names; - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain, but instead uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to pages containing monetized pay-per-click advertisements. The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not provided any evidence to overcome this prima facie showing, nor is there any other evidence in the record to tip the balance in the Respondent’s favor. The Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that a disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [respondent’s] website or location”. Because the Complainant’s OMEGA mark is well-known, and because it has been in use and registered since before the registration of the disputed domain names, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the mark when it registered the disputed domain names. The Panel finds, on these facts, that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its OMEGA mark when it registered the disputed domain names. These facts show bad faith registration of the disputed domain names. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain names to establish websites displaying unauthorized pay-per-click links. The Complainant has successfully established the third UDRP element. 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 Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: September 14, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy