The Complainant is Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK), United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Nicholas Weston IP Lawyers, Australia.
The Respondent is Shiv Baba Service, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, United Kingdom, Shiv baba Service, Brahma Kumaris Spiritual University, United Kingdom, Shiv Baba Service Initiative, United Kingdom, Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America, / Shiv Baba Service, United Kingdom, Shiv Baba Service Initiative, United Kingdom, Anand Samrat, Brahma Kumaris, Unites Kingdom, Anand Samrat, India, Shiv Baba Service, BK Godly Spiritual University, United Kingdom, and Name Redacted1 .
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarsThe disputed domain name
The disputed domain name
The disputed domain names
The disputed domain names
The disputed domain name
Each disputed domain name is referred to as a “Disputed Domain Name” in this decision and together two or more of the Disputed Domain Names are referred to as the “Disputed Domain Names”.
3. Procedural HistoryThe Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2021. On August 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names.
On August 27, the Fourth Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the relevant Disputed Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
On September 5, 2021, the Fifth Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the relevant Disputed Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
On August 30, 2021, the Third Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the relevant Disputed Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
On August 27, 2021, the Second Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the relevant Disputed Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
On September 1, 2021, the First Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response registrant and contact information for the relevant 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 September 6, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 10, 2021. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on September 19, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 September 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2021. An informal email from the Respondent was received on September 13, 2021. The Center informed the Parties of its commencement of Panel Appointment process on October 13, 2021.
The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on October 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.
The Center received an unsolicited further filing from the Complainant on November 15, 2021. In the light of the Panel's findings (below) the Panel has not found it necessary to consider this filing.
4. Factual BackgroundIn the absence of a Response the Panel accepts the following evidence as filed by the Complainant as being factually correct. The Complainant, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK) (referred to as “BKWSU-UK” in this decision) is a registered charity and is the United Kingdom branch of an organisation called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (referred to as “BKWSU-India” in this decision), headquartered in Mt. Abu, Rajasthan, India. Collectively the Complainant and BKWSU-India are referred to in this decision as “BKWSU”. For more than eight decades, BKWSU-India has used the name BRAHMA KUMARIS and in abbreviated form the designation BK in connection with its provision of the teaching of meditation and what it describes as “facilitating spiritual enlightenment”. BKWSU-India was founded in 1937 in Hyderabad, India, and has since then grown into an international network of educators with selected local affiliates who deliver products and information to their intended recipients in accordance with the organisation’s purpose of teaching and facilitating spiritual enlightenment. BKWSU-India now has 8,500 branches in 110 countries with more than 1 million students and claims to be the world’s largest spiritual organization run by women. The Complainant is the UK branch of BKWSU-India and is a registered charity in the UK that operates, in effect, as a wholly owned subsidiary of BKWSU-India.
BKWSU owns a number of registered trademarks for the word Brahama Kumaris – for example Indian trademark number 1154869 with a priority date of December 2, 2002. These are referred to as the BRAHAMA KUMARIS trademark in this decision.
Historically, persons interested in the teaching BKWSU provided placed orders for delivery of books, information, training, and gifts throughout the world by mail order or in person at BKWSU premises. In 2001, BKWSU began offering its information, products, and services online. People looking for BKWSU have been able to purchase books from BKWSU authorized outlets listed through several BKWSU domains, including
The Disputed Domain Names were registered on the following dates:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At the time of writing this decision the Disputed Domain Names resolve as follows:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Respondent’s Main Website contains a number of links on its landing page, one of which reads “Site Notice” and which has alongside it the words “please read”. If clicked on it leads to a disclaimer (the “Disclaimer”) which reads as follows:
“BKGSU website Notice from Admin
This is to notify all the users of our main website: www.brahma-kumaris.com aka www.bkgsu.com that this website is a non-official website of the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University (BKIVV), ran by the Shiv Baba Services team. This website is aimed to give daily sustenance to Baba’s children (via our ‘Online Services’, ‘Resources’ sections) and give accurate information about the organisation and its purpose to the seekers (via our ABOUT and WISDOM section)
Declaration from Site creator
We do not claim the website www.brahma-kumaris.com or www.bkgsu.com to be an ‘official’ website from BK organisation. Instead, our purpose is to spread God’s message by all means possible, while also presenting the organisation related information to the public and thereby, glorifying the name of BK organisation. It is with this elevated purpose that we the team of “Shiv Baba Service Initiative” have dedicated our day and night in creating and managing the website, thereby making the website more and more useful for the users. By May 2021, this was the MOST USED BK website of all.
The money required to run this website (and all its apps and internal services) is also paid by website’s creator (Anand Samrat).
Apart from the BKGSU main site, the “Shiv Baba Service team” is behind creating and running many other websites, mobile apps, YouTube channel and SoundCloud channel, and more... A full list of services can be found on this page: https://www.bkgoogle.com/services-done
Main Purpose of this Notice
We need your blessings so that we can overcome the hurdles coming on the path of one of Shiv Baba’s most important internet services. So we request you to send your thoughts and blessings.
Letter Written by:
A. Samrat,
Manager, The Shiv Baba Services Initiative”
The Complainant says the Disputed Domain Names may, for convenience, be divided into three groups. The first group relates to domain names incorporating, in one form or another, the trademark BRAHMA KUMARIS, the second group comprises domain names incorporating, in one form or another, the common law trademark BK and the third category comprises a domain name that incorporates the common law trademark MURLI.
The Complainant says there is a pattern of irregularities with respect to the Disputed Domain Names. The Tech contact for the Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant says it has engaged in correspondence with “Anand Samrat”, a pseudonym of “Kevin Patel” and that he admits common control of the Disputed Domain Names (see discussion below). The Complainant also provides detailed analysis of various other factors, which it says show the Disputed Domain Names are under common control. Where relevant these are discussed below.
The Complainant says it has registered trademark rights in respect of the words BRAHAMA KUMARIS and unregistered common law trademark rights in respect of the acronym BK and the term MURLI. Relevant factors are discussed further below.
The essence of the Complainant’s case is that it says the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name
“Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University is established by the incorporeal God-Father Shiva (the Supreme Soul) as a foundation to recreate the new heavenly world. We are an internationally recognised non-governmental organisation (NGO) helping people from all religious and cultural background to recognise and experience the inner being (soul) and bring positive and magical transformation in personal lives through the practice of rajyoga meditation.”
The Complainant says the other websites linked to the Disputed Domain Names are part of an overall pattern of activity which is impersonating the Complainant and its mark BK and/or suggesting an official connection when none exists.
The Complainant says that ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BK Marks for the reasons described below:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Complainant says that the addition of descriptive terms such as the acronym “gsu” (an acronym for Global Spiritual University), etc. does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the respective trademarks. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.
The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has not licensed or authorised the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to incorporate them in a domain name. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names to impersonate the Complainant is not use in the offering of bona fide goods or services (where, as here, it is based on the reputation of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks); nor is it a noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant also provides detailed analysis of various other factors, which it says show the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest. Where relevant these are discussed below.
The Complainant says that many factors demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith, including pursuant to the Policy paragraphs (4)(b) (ii), (iii), and (iv). It says there is overwhelming evidence that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademarks. The intention of the Respondent is corroborated by infringing website content aiming to confuse users seeking or expecting the Complainant to attract, for commercial gain (in this case donations and subscribers intended for the Complainant) Internet users to the Respondent’s competitor websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant also provides detailed analysis of various other factors, which it says show the Respondent has acted in bad faith. Where relevant these are discussed below.
B. RespondentNo response has been filed. The Panel will however in its discretion take into account the Respondent’s communication with the Center dated September 17, 2021. This is an email from an address Shiv Baba Service “shivklight@gmail.com” which reads as follows:
“[…] Dear Sir/Madam,
This email is to bring your urgent attention to this case.
I am the owner of the domains which are brought in dispute by a person named Nicholas mail@nicholasweston.com
I wish to let you know that I am the owner of the following domains:
YOU MAY CONFIRM THIS on who.is database.
All the above domains are owned by me and are used for our own websites, which are created and maintained by my team based in England, UK and in India. Our online initiative is named as “Shiv Baba Services Initiative” and it does not come under the trademark right of “Brahma Kumaris” organisation. Thus the claim is wrong.
-We are not using anyone's intellectual property, as claimed by the said person Nicholas. All our websites are operated under our initiative named "Shiv Baba Services Initiative" as you can see on each website's footer.
-We are also not misusing our organisation's name by any means. We instead are a part of this international organisation that work from home and manage websites.
-The websites are 100% our original creation, and runs with my own finance.
Finally, we wish to let WIPO be aware that this a wrong act by the said person Nicholas to acquire the domains/websites we own.
-Hence I request you to close this matter from your side. Many thanks […]
Shiv Baba Service […]”
The Panel notes that no formal Response has been filed. However, given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, then the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp,WIPO Case No. D2012-1909).
In any event it appears from the informal correspondence received from the Respondent (see above) that this matter has come to the Respondent’s notice.
6.1.2 Preliminary Matters – Respondent identity.The Panel also notes this is a case where one Respondent (“Perfect Privacy, LLC”) appears to be a privacy or proxy service.
The Panel in this case adopts the approach of most UDRP panels, as outlined in WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.4.5, as follows:
“Panel discretion
In all cases involving a privacy or proxy service and irrespective of the disclosure of any underlying registrant, the appointed panel retains discretion to determine the respondent against which the case should proceed.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, e.g., where a timely disclosure is made, and there is no indication of a relationship beyond the provision of privacy or proxy registration services, a panel may find it appropriate to apply its discretion to record only the underlying registrant as the named respondent. On the other hand, e.g., where there is no clear disclosure, or there is some indication that the privacy or proxy provider is somehow related to the underlying registrant or use of the particular domain name, a panel may find it appropriate to record both the privacy or proxy service and any nominally underlying registrant as the named respondent.”
In the present case, the Panel considers the substantive Respondent or Respondents to be the other persons or organisations identified as the Respondents. It appears for reasons discussed below in relation to common control that these all are names used by the author of the email discussed below or are organisations under his control. The Panel considers that the person to be the substantive Respondent and references to the Respondent are to that person.
6.1.3 Preliminary Matters – Consolidation and common controlA complaint is allowed to proceed with multiple respondents when the domains or websites are under common control. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2 where it states: “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.”
The Complainant has pointed to a wide range of factors, which suggest that the Disputed Domain Names are under common control. The Panel has found that evidence to be persuasive but does not find it necessary to analyse these factors in great detail as the email dated September 17, 2021, from “shivklight@gmail.com” acknowledges that the author of that email owns all of the Disputed Domain Names apart from the Disputed Domain Names
Accordingly the Panel finds that all of the Disputed Domain Names are under the common control of the author of the September 17, 2021, email. The term the “Respondent” is used in this decision to refer to that individual. The Panel also notes the Disclaimer (see above) is written by “A. Samrat” and says “Ananad Samrat” is the “website’s creator”. The Panel concludes the substantive Respondent is Ananad Samrat. The Complainant says this name is an alias for one Kevin Patel. The Panel does not know if this is correct but it does not matter.
The Panel accordingly concludes that it is fair and equitable for the Complaint to proceed in respect of all the Disputed Domain Names as it is clear that substantially the same issues are raised in respect of all of the Disputed Domain Names and it is procedurally efficient to proceed in a single Complaint.
6.2 Substantive MattersTo succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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 Name;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has rights in the BRAHAMA KUMARIS trademark. In this regard, the Panel does not find it necessary to distinguish between rights held by BKWSU-India and rights held by the Complainant given the Complainant’s position as in effect a subsidiary organisation of BKWSU-India. See section 1.4.1, WIPO Overview 3.0, which states: “A trademark owner’s affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint”.
The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names
“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name
It is also well established that the gTLD, in this case “.com” or “.org”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Names for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
So far as the terms “BK” and “murli” are concerned the Panel has not however found it as straightforward to assess whether those terms are really being used as trademarks – i.e., as an identifier of goods or services the Complainant provides. On balance and in the absence of a Response the Panel is persuaded that the Complainant does have unregistered trademark rights in the term BK for the purposes of the Policy – in particular because the Respondent clearly thought it worthwhile to use them as identifiers to attract traffic to his own websites which all target the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Names
The Panel has found the question of whether the term “murli” is one in which the Complainant or BKWSU-India has trademark rights more difficult. The evidence on this issue is not as clear as one would hope. The Complaint rather unhelpfully at times conflates the terms “BK” and “murli” together (as for example in “Common law rights in the marks BK and MURLI date back to the 1940’s when used in the context of meditation education services, written and recorded stories and related products, services and information……”). However, the Complaint does say “As a result of extensive use, the common law trademarks BK and MURLI have acquired secondary meaning to indicate when someone is affiliated with the BRAHMA KUMARIS organization and for BRAHMA KUMARIS related written and recorded stories respectively”. The Complainant has placed in evidence BKWSU’s constitution which contains a section that reads as follows: “(v) ‘Murlis’ means Godly discourses or versions disseminated by the Supreme God Father Shiva, through, His corporeal medium Prajapita Brahma till 18” January 1969, called Sakar Murlis and now being disseminated from 21” January 1969 onwards, through the Official Trans-Messenger Sister, called Avyakt Murlis. These Murlis are now being also revised for realization courses”. The Panel therefore understands the Complainant’s case to be that the word “murli” designates a written or recorded story produced by the BKWSU organisation or its members and likely disseminated in some form of official manner. That does not however assist in determining whether the term is one in which unregistered rights subsist.
The Panel has tried to understand how in practice BKWSU uses the term “murli”. The Panel used the search facility on the website linked to the Complainant’s domain name
The Panel also used the search facility on the website linked to the Complainant’s domain name
The Panel finds it difficult to see how this situation supports a claim to unregistered trademark rights in the term “murli”. The Complainant has at least one pending trademark application for the term “murli” but a pending application on its own does not amount to trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy (see section 1.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Panel has however identified a further website linked to the domain name
The Respondent describes “murlis” as follows (see section entitled What is Murli and what is Shimrat” on Respondent’s Main Website) “Murli is the recorded teachings spoken by the incorporeal supreme soul through his corporeal medium. These are the sweetest words of true raw knowledge” and “What is Sakar Murli? Sakar Murlis are original versions of Shiv Baba our Supreme Teacher, as initially and actually spoken by Him through his corporeal medium Prajapita Brahma from 1951 till 18 Jan 1969. These precious teachings have been preserved through the years, translated to other languages, and circulated to all the 9000 Brahma Kumaris branches throughout the world. These Sakar Murlis are read by the teacher sisters-in-charge at all our BK centres from Monday to Saturday during the morning and evening Murli-Classes attended by the local resident BK students. Listen original audio”.
A Google search (carried out by the Panel in the UK) on the term “murli” would seem to suggest it is uniquely used in relation to the Braham Kumaris movement by BKWSU and now by the Respondent. It does not appear to be a word in use elsewhere.
The Disputed Domain Name
It therefore appears to the Panel that a single “murli” is published each day by BKWSU and read aloud at BKWSU centers around the world that day. The Panel also thinks it is the case that the Respondent is making the same murlis available via his website on a daily basis.
Given this analysis the Panel has concluded that the term “murli” is a source identifier for the lessons or stories that are promulgated by BKWSU on a daily basis and that the Respondent is using that source identifier as part of a Disputed Domain Name to attract visitors to his websites as an alternative source of supply for the same murlis.
Accordingly the Panel is satisfied on the evidence as filed that the Complainant has shown it has unregistered trademark rights in the terms BK and “murli” for the purposes of the Policy given their use by the Respondent as source identifiers.
The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the unregistered marks BK or “murli” are each confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks – as noted above previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. DHL Packers,WIPO Case No. D2008-1694).
Accordingly the Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s trademarks and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel has not found this to be a straightforward case. In very general terms it seems to the Panel that at least arguably the Respondent’s activity is directed at promoting the principles which the Complainant’s organisation promotes and drawing attention to the teachings and benefits of the mediation and spiritual advancement techniques that the Complainant teaches. If matters rested at that point the Panel would be very cautious about concluding the Respondent necessarily lacked a right or legitimate interest. In matters of religion or spirituality it seems to the Panel that many persons may have a legitimate interest in promoting and drawing attention to a particular religion, or philosophy, or way of life or spiritual approach – and it is not appropriate for domain names that are used in such a manner to be subject to transfer under the Policy. However in examining carefully the record in this case the Panel has reached the conclusion that the Respondent has gone further than simply seeking to extol or promote the teachings and principles that the Complainant teaches and practices. He has in substance claimed to be the Complainant. This is most clearly illustrated by the passage that the Complainant draws attention to under the “About Us,” section on the Respondent’s Main Website which reads as follows:
“Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University is established by the incorporeal God-Father Shiva (the Supreme Soul) as a foundation to recreate the new heavenly world. We are an internationally recognised non-governmental organisation (NGO) helping people from all religious and cultural background to recognise and experience the inner being (soul) and bring positive and magical transformation in personal lives through the practice of rajyoga meditation.”
That statement is manifestly incorrect and untrue and cannot have been written by mistake – the Respondent must know he is not an internationally recognised NGO. The Respondent uses the term “Godly Spiritual University here (and in many other places in the Respondent’s Main website) in a way which seems designed to be confusingly similar to BKWSU’s use of “World Spiritual University” as part of its name. This too seems untrue – there is no evidence that the Respondent is operating anything that can be described as a “university”.
The Respondent has also created a complex arrangement of a number of domain names and a number of websites with redirection and linking between them which creates an overall impression that is hard to disentangle3 but which, it seems to the Panel, would likely add to the impression given to a visitor that all of the websites in question are operated by the Complainant or its parent body or are otherwise authorised by them. This must have taken significant effort and goes well beyond promoting a website which extols a particular teaching of a religious or spiritual organisation.
In many ways it seems to the Panel that the present case is analogous to those cases concerning fan or tribute sites. The Panel is prepared to accept that the Respondent is a devotee of the teachings and philosophy espoused by the Complainant and is operating a series of websites where it would seem his motive is directed at promoting those teachings and philosophy. It does not seem to the Panel that commercial gain is the main objective of the Respondent’s activities – his request for donations appears peripheral at best and directed at helping him defray operating costs. Furthermore as far as the Panel can see the vast majority of material (possibly all of it) which is made available by the Respondent via the Respondent’s Main Website is provided without charge.
Given this background the Panel has found it helpful to consider the approach set out at WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.7, which provides as follows:
“Many of the considerations applied in relation to criticism sites, as discussed above in section 2.6, also are considered by panels as relevant in relation to fan sites.
2.7.1 As with criticism sites discussed above, for purposes of assessing fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), a respondent’s fan site must be active, genuinely noncommercial, and clearly distinct from any official complainant site. Again, similar to claimed criticism sites, there are a number of UDRP cases in which the respondent claims to have a true fan site but the panel finds that it is primarily a pretext for cybersquatting or commercial activity.
2.7.2 Where a domain name which is identical to a trademark (i.e.,
2.7.3 Where the domain name is not identical to the complainant’s trademark, i.e., it comprises the mark plus an additional, typically descriptive or laudatory term (e.g.,
In the present case it seems to the Panel that the Respondent has adopted domain names which are not materially different to those of the Complainant or its parent; it has also adopted names which completely inaccurately suggest they are approved by the Complainant or its parent by including the word “official”. Indeed the first Dispute Domain Name he registered was
The Panel also does not think that the terms of the Disclaimer (see above) assist the Respondent. First, the existence of the Disclaimer itself reveals that the Respondent understands that visitors may be under the impression that the Respondent’s Main Website is something to do with the Complainant. Second, the Disclaimer is itself confusing – it says “this website is a non-official website of the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University (BKIVV)”. As far as the Panel is aware, no such organisation as the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University (BKIVV) exists but use of this name seems likely to lead to confusion with the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU).
It is also appropriate to note the informal communication from the Respondent (above) does not establish a legitimate interest. In that he states “Our online initiative is named as ‘Shiv Baba Services Initiative’ and it does not come under the trademark right of ‘Brahma Kumaris” organisation. Thus the claim is wrong”. That statement is manifestly inaccurate. The Respondent certainly uses the term “Shiv Baba” and Shiv Baba Services Initiative” on the webpages to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve but is not these terms which are giving rise to complaint – on the material before the Panel if he was using “Shiv Baba” and variations thereof as the basis for relevant domain names then no complaint would be being made. However he is not – he is using Brahma Kumaris, BK, and Murli and those terms, contrary to what the Respondent says, are directly related to trademark rights that the Complainant owns – as discussed above.
Taking all of the above into account, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in any of the Disputed Domain Names and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithIn the present circumstances, for the reasons set out above the Panel concludes the Respondent has deliberately set out to give the impression that his websites are those of BKWSU or are approved by BKWSU He has constructed a complex set of domain names linking or redirecting to several different websites which creates the impersonation in question. His motives for doing so seem to the Panel to be more likely directed at an enthusiasm for the teachings and philosophy that the Complainant promotes rather than direct financial gain. However, he has in the Panel’s view overstepped what is acceptable in this regard and acted in bad faith. There are a number of aggravating factors which lead the Panel to this conclusion in addition to those discussed above in relation to legitimate interest. These are as follows:
Some of the information recorded in the registration details of the Disputed Domain Names is untrue. Thus for example the tech contact for the Disputed Domain Name
The footer to all pages on the Respondent’s Main Website shows an address, which is the address of BKWSU. It also displays the words Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University. These words appear alongside a logo, which is clearly a copy of a logo the Complainant uses (and for which it has registered trademark rights). This layout must have been deliberately chosen so that any visitor looking at it would have the impression this was a website produced by or with the authority of BKWSU.
Amongst other facilities the Respondent’s Main Website offers a “Center Locator” which is a search facility which states “Centre Locator (International) (New: Centre Locator -International) Find Brahma Kumaris RajYoga centre in your country. We welcome everyone to come visit our locations at 100+ international countries and get a spiritual experience”. That clearly gives the inaccurate impression that it is a service run by BKWSU.
Further examples can be found throughout the Respondent’s websites – in summary those websites give the clear impression that they are operated by BKWSU and visitors would likely assume that the Shiv Baba Services Institute also identified on these pages was some sort of operation within the BKWSU organisation or was approved by BKWSU.
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad faith comprises:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
In the present case, the Panel is not sure that any of these apply – paragraph 4(b)(iv) might but the Panel is doubtful the Respondent’s motives are for commercial gain or that he is in fact making any commercial gain. However the list in paragraph 4(b) is non-exhaustive. The Panel infers the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Names because of their confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks and used them to attract visitors by creating a likelihood of confusion. For reasons discussed above the Panel concludes he did so deliberately and has created a degree of confusion which is not justified by whatever enthusiasm he may have for BKWSU and its teachings. The result is a number of interlinked websites, which BKWSU does not control but which will likely be understood by many visitors as being those of BKWSU. The Panel concludes this amounts to bad faith registration and use by the Respondent.
Further the Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed himself of the opportunity to present properly any case of good faith that he might have. The informal communication from the Respondent (see above) does not in the Panel’s view establish a good faith case – if the Respondent wishes to carry on his activities under or by reference to a name involving the words “shiv baba”, he does not require domain names based on the Complainant’s registered trademark BRAHAMA KUMARIS and unregistered trademarks BK and MURLI to do so, especially those with the word “official” in some of them.
Taking all of this into account the Panel concludes the Complainant has shown that each of the Disputed Domain Names has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
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 names
Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2021
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
2 The Panel notes that domain name
3 The Panel has spent some time reviewing these websites and the way in which they interlink and redirect.