ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Synopsys, Inc. v. Cameron Crest Case No. D2023-0776 1. The Parties The Complainant is Synopsys, Inc., United States of America ("United States"), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Cameron Crest, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 21, 2023. On February 22, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2023, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 1, 2023, 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 March 3, 2023. 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 March 7, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2023. The Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 28, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 2023. 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 Background The Complainant, Synopsys, Inc., is an internationally renowned United States corporation engaged in electronic design automation. Synopsys is a leading provider of solutions for designing and verifying advance silicon chips, and for designing the next-generation processes and models required to manufacture those chips. Synopsis, Inc. v. Office Rolls, WIPO Case No. D2022-2642. The Complainant owns and utilizes various domain names, including but not limited to . The Complainant has registered its trademark SYNOPSIS (the "Mark") in numerous national jurisdictions, the earliest of which is Registration No. 1601521 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 12, 1990. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2021. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is identical to the Mark because the disputed domain name adopts the Mark entirely, and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") of the disputed domain name, namely ".video", is irrelevant for the purposes of determining identical or confusing similarity under the Policy. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, never operated a business under the disputed domain name, has not advertised the disputed domain name, and never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Mark with reasonable investigation and registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical 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; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's Mark. The disputed domain name is entirely and solely composed of the Mark. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7 The gTLD of the disputed domain name, in this case ".video", may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Monster Energy Company, a Delaware Corporation v. J.H.M. den Ouden, WIPO Case No. D2016-1759. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case in its favor, which shifts the burden of production on this point to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and the disputed domain name will likely confuse unsuspecting Internet users into believing the disputed domain name would resolve to a website associated, sponsored, or affiliated with the Complainant. The facts and circumstances presented to the Panel demonstrate that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, bad faith may be established by any one of the following non-exhaustive scenarios: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location. page 4 The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Mark is well known in the United States where the Respondent resides. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent innocently and unknowingly composed the disputed domain name entirely of the Complainant's Mark while adding the gTLD "video". The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's well-known Mark when registering and using the disputed domain name to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, "panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put". WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The circumstances of this case require the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and its non-use does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. The Mark is well established; the disputed domain is only composed of the Mark, notwithstanding the gTLD ".video"; the disputed domain name is an obvious attempt to attract unsuspecting Internet users; and the Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Panel finds that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and its Mark and registered the disputed domain name with the intent to divert Internet traffic and benefit commercially from unsuspecting Internet users seeking out the Complainant. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For 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, , be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy