ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Amdocs Development Ltd., Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. Wu Yu Case No. D2023-3185 1. The Parties The Complainant is Amdocs Development Ltd., Cyprus and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd., Ireland, represented by Liad Whatstein & Co., Israel. The Respondent is Wu Yu, Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 24, 2023. On July 25, 2023, the Center transmitted by emails to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by emails to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Sav.Com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 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 August 7, 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 August 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 28, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 14, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 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 belongs to the Amdocs group of companies, which develop and market software solutions in various fields. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations around the world, among others, the following: Trademark No. Registration Jurisdiction Date of Registration AMDOCS 1302596 Switzerland, Israel, India, Mexico. April 11, 2016 AMDOCS 015184252 European Union July 13, 2016 AMDOCS 581774 Switzerland January 19, 2009 The disputed domain name was registered on April 09, 2022. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a landing page comprising links to third party software vendors. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argued the following: I. Identical or Confusingly Similar That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AMDOCS registered trademarks. That the AMDOCS trademarks have acquired substantial goodwill by extensive use thereof worldwide, and that they are well-known trademarks. II. Rights or Legitimate Interests That the Respondent does not have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since there is no evidence of use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. That the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. That the Respondent has no trademark rights for the AMDOCS. III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith That the disputed domain is identical to the Complainant's trademark AMDOCS and that it has been used by the Respondent in relation to a phishing campaign which uses e-mail addresses similar to those of the Complainant. page 3 That the disputed domain name has been used to mislead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is owned or endorsed by, or associated with the Complainant. That the Respondent currently does not offer products or services under the disputed domain name. That, instead, the disputed domain name redirects users to a landing page which offers sponsored links to direct competitors of the Complainant. That the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name and that therefore, the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Given the Respondent's failure to submit a formal Response, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainant's undisputed factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487). 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 trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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. page 4 Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has asserted that there is no evidence of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the AMDOCS trademark or to register the disputed domain name (see Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. cenk erdogan, WIPO Case No. D2023-3044; Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. Nick Lamba, WIPO Case No. D2023-2573 and Autodesk, Inc. v. Brian Byrne, meshIP, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0191). 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 such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. 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. In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page comprising links to third party software vendors which the Complainant declares to be its competitors. This affirmation was not contested by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant's trademark by misleading Internet users, for commercial gain, to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Fontem Holdings 4, B.V. v. J- B-, Limestar Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0344; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing, WIPO Case No. D2017-0363, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / George Ring, DN Capital Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0302). Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). This Panel agrees with the decision issued in Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. cenk erdogan, WIPO Case No. D2023-3044 in that AMDOCS is a widely known trademark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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. /Kiyoshi Tsuru/ Kiyoshi Tsuru Sole Panelist Date: October 16, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy