The Complainant is Viking Global Investors LP, United States of America (“United States”), represented by ZwillGen PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Customer 1241457690, Contact Privacy Inc., Canada / Viking Capital, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2021. On November 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 24, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 25, 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 amended Complaint on November 29, 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 December 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2021.
On December 28, 2021, the Respondent sent an informal email to which the Center replied on December 30, 2021.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2022. 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.
On January 12, 2021, the Respondent sent another informal communication.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant is a global investment company founded in 1999, with offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia. It manages approximately USD 50 billion for its investors.
The Complainant holds trademark registration for the word mark VIKING in several jurisdictions, such as Singapore trademark number 40201923777W, registered on October 31, 2019, Hong Kong trademark number 301549684, registered on February 24, 2010 and renewed on February 23, 2020, and Israel trademark number 321778, registered on July 2, 2020.
The Domain Name was registered on June 18, 2017. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage purporting to offer investment services. The Complainant has documented that the website in not genuine in as much as the contact details on the webpage do not refer to an authentic company.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The additional elements “capital” and “inc.” do not add any distinctiveness from the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the additions and the Respondent’s webpage, suggest that the Domain Name is for an investment firm such as the Complainant. The Complainant points out that the Domain Name already has caused confusion with the Complainant’s business.
The Complainant asserts that it has no association with the Respondent and has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s webpage is not genuine, but rather evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s company, Viking Capital, is a fictional company. None of the addresses or contact details listed on the webpage appear to be associated with a company called Viking Capital. The Domain Name appears to be associated with a fabricated company. The Respondent thus has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract web traffic for commercial gain, which it seeks to accomplish by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Domain Name holds out the fictitious “Viking Capital” as an investment company like the Complainant. The website appears to be a scam website that attempts to profit off the success and good name of the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On January 12, 2022, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center stating: “[t]he domain vikingcapitalinc.com has been canceled, and the email and website is no longer active.”
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark VIKING. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the additional elements “capital” and “inc.”. This does obviously not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark.
For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domains, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent has not offered any explanation as to the registration of the Domain Name, and therefore not provided any evidence of good-faith use. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, particularly as it has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. Under the circumstances of this case, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s company is probably not genuine. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide, but rather evidence of bad faith, see below.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds it probable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the Domain Name, the additional elements “capital” and “inc.” are related to the Complainant’s business and the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name clearly indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. The Panel cannot see any good faith use to which the Domain Name may be put by the Respondent. The Respondent has set up a webpage that appears to be for a fictitious company. It is done most likely in order to attract web traffic for commercial gain, perhaps even for fraudulent use. Furthermore, the Respondent has initially concealed its identity and offered false contact details. These circumstances further indicate bad faith.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2022