ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Grabtaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Dam Van Thiet Case No. D2023-2852 1. The Parties The Complainant is Grabtaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore, represented by BMVN International LLC, Viet Nam. The Respondent is Dam Van Thiet, 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 July 5, 2023. On July 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 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. 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 proceeding commenced on July 17, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 6, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 16, 2023. ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER page 2 The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is a company headquartered in Singapore and a provider, since 2012, of ride booking, ride hailing and ride sharing services under the trade mark GRAB (the "Trade Mark"), in particular in South East Asian countries (including Viet Nam). The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including Viet Nam registration No. 318225, registered on April 16, 2019. B. Respondent The Respondent is located in Viet Nam. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2021. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name resolves to a Vietnamese language website offering ride booking, ride hailing and ride sharing services in a number of locations in Viet Nam, under the name "Taxi Tân Uyên Grab", and containing a copyright notice "Copyright 2023 c Taxi Tân Uyên Grab" (the "Website"). The Website contains links to several such transportation services offered in several cities in Viet Nam, using the naming convention of "Taxi + geographical location + Grab", for example, Taxi Tân Mỹ Grab; and Taxi Bạch Đằng Grab. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7), prefaced by the words "taxi", and "tan uyen" (the name of a city in Viet Nam). Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is 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 trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden of production is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, to provide transportation services under the Trade Mark, in direct competition with those offered for many years by the Complainant in Viet Nam. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain name highlighted in section 6.2.B above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: September 6, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy