The Complainant is Arm Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Quinn IP Law, United States of America (“U.S.”).
The Respondent is Olaf Matthews, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2021. On December 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 17, 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 December 17, 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 December 22, 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 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2022.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 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.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant provides technology related goods and services since 1990. The Complainant designs electronic products, including computer processors, graphics processors, digital memories and peripheral hardware and supplies software, development tools for computer hardware and provides software and consultancy services. The Complainant’s processors are used for most mobile telephones, and for laptops, tablets, televisions and other electronic products. The Complainant has globally sold over 200 billion products under its Arm brand.
The Complainant holds more than 100 trademarks for ARM and ARM formative trademark registrations worldwide, such as United Kingdom trademark no. UK00002000006 registered on January 29, 1999, U.S. trademark no. 2332930 and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) trademark no. 001112986. The Complainant owns over 190 domain names that begin with the ARM trademark.
According to the WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on January 28, 2016. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that its trademark is recognized as a well-known mark under the WTO and Paris Conventions. The Complainant argues further that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The additional element does not add any distinctiveness from the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the addition adds to the confusion as the Complainant sells processors.
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. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making any use of the Domain Name. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations that predate the Domain Name registration. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant’s demand letter, and the Respondent has used a privacy service when registering the Domain Name. The Complainant points to that the registration may well be preparatory for a possible “phishing” or “pharming” scheme.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ARM. 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, a hyphen and the misspelled word “processorz”. This does 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 ignores the generic
Top-Level Domain, 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 an unrebutted prima facie case 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, and that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. 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 demonstrable preparations for a good-faith use. Finally, there is nothing in this case pointing towards the Respondent being commonly known by the Domain Name, or otherwise having rights or legitimate interests.
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 trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Name. The additional element of “processorz” is related to the Complainant’s business.
The Respondent’s lack of use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Respondent has failed to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. Noting the composition of the Domain Name, where the added term is connected to the Complainant’s business, the Panel cannot see any good faith use to which the Domain Name may be put by the Respondent.
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: February 17, 2022