ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION YPO, Inc. v. Jay Schlim, King Kali Case No. D2022-3659 1. The Parties Complainant is YPO, Inc., United States of America ("United States" or "U.S."), represented by Brand Enforcement Team 101 Domain, United States. Respondent is Jay Schlim, King Kali, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names and (the "Domain Names") are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and Porkbun LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 1, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with each disputed domain name. On October 4, 2022, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 4, 2022, providing the registrants and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 6, 2022. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 18, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on November 8, 2022. The Center appointed John C. McElwaine as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a United States-based leadership community of global chief executives with the goal to improve lives, businesses, and the world. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration, U.S. Reg. No. 2,172,537, for YPO, registered on July 14, 1998 for educational services in Class 41 and association services in Class 42. The domain name was registered on June 29, 2022; and , provides online information for current, prospective, and past members to access. In addition Complainant alleges that its membership portal, as well as general information about the organization's goals, requirements, and active members, are all directly rendered under Complainant's trademarked term "YPO". Complainant also contends that it has continually used the YPO trademark for over 30 years. Collectively, Complainant's registered and unregistered trademark rights are referred to herein as the "YPO Mark." Complainant alleges it became aware of Respondent's registration of when Complainant's members contacted Complainant to report a fraudster was sending emails offering discounts on Complainant's membership dues to Complainant's community base using an email address with this domain name. Complainant claims that it promptly filed an abuse complaint with Porkbun, on June 28, 2022. Complainant asserts that after review of the complaint and evidence, the registrar confirmed the domain's suspension on June 29, 2022. That same day the domain name was registered with a different registrar, Public Domain Registry. Complainant asserts that it later became aware that the fraudulent user of the generic Top-level-Domain ("gTLD") ".org" domain name was now using the gTLD ".com" domain name. Complainant filed multiple abuse complaints with Public Domain Registry and hosting provider of , but no corrective action was taken. As a result, this proceeding became necessary. With respect to the first element of the Policy, Complainant asserts that Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's YPO Mark because they both contain the entirety of Complainant's trademark and direct consumers to websites that do not resolve. With respect to the second element of the Policy, Complainant asserts that it has not licensed nor allowed Respondent to use the YPO Mark for any purpose. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Complainant alleges that by registering a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known YPO Mark, and undertaking a fraudulent scheme with its use of the Domain Names, Respondent could not be making a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. page 3 With respect to the third element of the Policy, Complainant alleges that Respondent's use of the Domain Names to send emails seeking to defraud Complainant's members constitutes registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As an initial procedural matter, the Registrars reported back two different registrant names of the Domain Names. Complainant contends, however, that that the Domain Names have been registered and controlled by the same registrant despite the differing registrant names and contact data. Specifically, Complainant contends that support for this assertion can be found in the email correspondence attached as Annex 7. The email in Annex 7 purports to be from a YPO Membership Transition Specialist. In this email, the signature line in the email conversation reads "...@ypolifetime.org" on June 30, 2022, while the later email on July 7, 2022, shows "...@ypolifetime.com". Additionally, Complainant submitted evidence that both registrant email addresses were fake. Specifically, Complainant asserted that the mailing address of one registrant is not a legitimate street address in Dry Creek Alaska, the phone number area codes do not correspond with either California or Alaska, but rather Oklahoma and Colorado, there were no relevant search results found for either email address, and when researching the individual's name and listed region, no relevant search results were returned for either identity. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents as follows: "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." Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants' identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants' contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., or ), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s). Here, Complainant has established that the Domain Names were all registered within weeks of each other using contact information that was likely false: was registered on June 29, 2022; and and , be transferred to Complainant. /John C McElwaine/ John C McElwaine Sole Panelist Date: November 28, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy