ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC v. Michael Ezike Case No. D2023-1898 1. The Parties The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Michael Ezike, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 27, 2023. On April 27, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 2, 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 amendment to the Complaint on May 4, 2023. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 May 10, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 30, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 1, 2023. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 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, Meta Platforms, Inc. is a United States social media technology company which operates Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Meta Quest (formerly known as "Oculus"). The Complainant, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, was acquired by the Complainant Meta Platforms, Inc. in 2014, and is the intellectual property rights holder for various technologies owned by the Complainant Meta Platforms, Inc. and a distributor of virtual reality ("VR") software and apparatus, including the "Meta Quest" VR headsets.as the Complainants are part of the same group, they will be collectively referred to as the "Complainant" hereinafter. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for META and QUEST worldwide, such as the following: - the United States Trademark registration No. 5548121 for the word META, registered on August 28, 2018, assigned to the Complainant on October 26, 2021, and covering services in international classes 35 and 42; - the European Union Trademark registration No. 017961685 for the word QUEST, and registered on June 16, 2020, and covering goods and services in international classes 9, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45; and - the United States Trademark registration No. 6279215 for the word QUEST, registered on February 23, 2021, and covering goods and services in international classes 9, 28, 35, and 42. The Complainant also holds a number of domain names incorporating the META and QUEST trademarks, The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2022, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used for a website that contained so called pay-per-click ("PPC") links to "related articles" on third party websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its widely known trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect the trademarks META and QUEST for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.2.1. The Panel further finds that these marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these marks mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. page 3 Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests 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 Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. Rather, the Respondent has composed the disputed domain name of two of the Complainant's famous trademarks and has used said disputed domain name to host a PPC landing page wherein the Respondent presumable earns click-through revenue from the unsuspecting Internet users misled to the disputed domain name by virtue of the implied affiliation with the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has not 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 sites 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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. /Knud Wallberg/ Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: June 22, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy