ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION GrabTaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Kieu Manh Nam Case No. D2023-1414 1. The Parties The Complainant is GrabTaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore, represented by BMVN International LLC, Viet Nam. The Respondent is Kieu Manh Nam, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with P.A. Viet Nam Company Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 1, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On April 11, 2023, the Center sent an email disclosing information regarding the disputed domain name as disclosed by the Registrar. On April 13, 2023, the Center received an email communication from the Complainant. The Center verified that the 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 April 13, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 5, 2023. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is part of a group of companies that, since 2012, has operated a ride-hailing, taxi/food, and delivery/grocery mobile app called GRAB. The app is available in Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, including in Viet Nam since 2014. The Complainant owns many trade marks for GRAB, including Singapore trade mark No. 40201601957R, registered on May 19, 2016, and Viet Nam trade mark No. 318225, registered on April 16, 2019, both in classes 9, 38, and 39. The Complainant operates a website at "www.grab.com". The disputed domain name was registered on October 1, 2020. As of March 30, 2023, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that appeared to offer a service competing with the Complainant. The site was branded with the Complainant's GRAB logo along with the title "Tong Dai Grab Binh Duong", which can be translated as "Grab Binh Duong Call Centre". Binh Duong is a province in Viet Nam. The page also included images of vehicles bearing the Complainant's logo as well as extensive other references to the Complainant's GRAB mark. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1 Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trade mark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms (here, "tongdai", a Vietnamese word meaning "call centre" and "binhduong" referable to the Binh Duong Province in Viet Nam) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity page 3 between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that, as discussed in section 4 above, the Respondent has plainly set out to impersonate the Complainant including by extensive use of the Complainant's GRAB logo and mark on its website. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy