The Complainant is Rightmove Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Safenames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Suspended Domain, Suspended Domain, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 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 August 13, 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 August 13, 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 August 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2021.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant, founded in 2000, operates the United Kingdom’s largest real estate portal and property search function under the “Rightmove” name. Its customers include estate agents, letting agents, and new home developers. The “Rightmove” portal is available to the public via the Complainant’s website at “www.rightmove.co.uk”, which enables users to search for residential property, commercial property, new homes, rentals, and overseas property. The Complainant’s website regularly attains over 100 million visits per month, is the 12th most visited website within the United Kingdom, and the first most visited in its sector. In 2019, the Complainant had revenue of GBP 289.3 million.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations including United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 2432055 (filed on September 8, 2006, and entered into the register on July 27, 2007) for the word trademark RIGHTMOVE, and European Union Trademark Registration No. 15568561 (registered on April 13, 2017) for the stylized trademark RIGHTMOVE.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2021. The Complainant has provided screenshots, taken on March 1, 2021, showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a website with content relating to the real estate industry and containing the contact details of the Complainant. The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on March 1, 2021, informing the Respondent of the Complainant’s rights in the RIGHTMOVE trademark, and requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant by May 8, 2021. The Complainant has provided a further screenshot of the website resolving from the disputed domain name on August 9, 2021, showing that it resolved to a page with click-through links to various organizations offering a range of goods and services relating to real estate.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s RIGHTMOVE trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “property” and a hyphen; (ii) the conjunction of “property” with the Complainant’s RIGHTMOVE trademark is likely to create further confusion in the minds of Internet users as it is directly descriptive of the Complainant’s business activities; and (iii) the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded as it is a standard registration requirement.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has not registered any trademarks for the term “rightmove”, and there is no evidence the Respondent holds any unregistered rights to the term “rightmove”; (ii) all active trademarks for RIGHTMOVE are held by the Complainant and the Respondent has not received any license from the Complainant to use a domain name which features the RIGHTMOVE trademark; (iii) there is no bona fide offering of goods and services attached to the disputed domain name, as the website resolving from it currently hosts a pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising page that contains links thematically similar to the Complainant’s sector, many of which redirect to the websites of third-party businesses offering services which are in direct competition to those offered by the Complainant; (iv) prior to the cease and desist letter sent to the Respondent by the Complainant’s representative, the disputed domain name was previously used to host a website that claimed to offer the services of the Complainant, namely a “property portal” in which the Respondent attempted to pass itself off as being the Complainant, which included legitimate information of the Complainant’s business such as their registered address, company number, and contact information; (v) the Respondent has taken unfair commercial advantage of the Complainant’s trademark by using a domain name that is so closely similar to the Complainant’s trademark in a manner that has the potential to cause genuine confusion in unsuspecting Internet users; (vi) the fact that the Respondent subsequently changed its use of the disputed domain name as a result of receiving a cease and desist letter is evidence to show that the Respondent was aware that it was not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (vii) the Respondent is not known, and has never been known, as Rightmove, and has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant; and (viii) the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as it has attempted to make a commercial gain through misleadingly diverting Internet users to a website that claims to be affiliated with the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Complainant’s earliest registration of the RIGHTMOVE trademark predates the creation date of the disputed domain name by at least 14 years; (ii) searches for RIGHTMOVE on popular Internet search engines, such as Google, list the Complainant’s brand services as the first result, and any average Internet user can find RIGHTMOVE trademarks on public trademark databases; (iii) it is inconceivable to believe the Respondent has chosen to register the disputed domain name, which comprises the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term “property” (which is descriptive of the Complainant’s services), for any other purpose other than to target the Complainant; (iv) the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter giving the Respondent the opportunity to give evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name but it chose not to respond; (v) the Respondent has primarily used the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business activities; and (vi) the use of the disputed domain name to host a property portal and subsequently a PPC advertising page shows a clear intention on the part of the Respondent to obtain commercial benefits from unsuspecting Internet users landing on the website resolving from it and utilizing the services linked therefrom in the belief that they are connected to, affiliated with, or sponsored by the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarOnce the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark RIGHTMOVE preceded by the word “property” and a hyphen. The Complainant’s word trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the word “property” and a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. As provided in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its RIGHTMOVE trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was initially used to resolve to a website that contained the Complainant’s business details and purported to offer real estate services very similar to those offered by the Complainant. Following a cease and desist letter from the Complainant to the Respondent, the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website with PPC links to various real estate services. Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark and the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, such uses of the disputed domain name are neither bona fide uses nor legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not rebutted this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its RIGHTMOVE word trademark. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name ignorant of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark, given that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark preceded by the word “property” and a hyphen, and that it has been used in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2021