ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION VFS Global Services PLC. v. Caleb Blessing Amaji, Ute Globlal Case No. D2023-3439 1. The Parties The Complainant is VFS Global Services PLC., United Kingdom, represented by Aditya & Associates, India. The Respondent is Caleb Blessing Amaji, Ute Globlal, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name are registered with Whogohost Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 11, 2023. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 proceedings commenced on August 22, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 13, 2023. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 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 a part of the VFS Group of Companies, which provides services related to outsourcing and technology. The Complainant also provides technological and logistics support services, such as visa application assistance, to various Foreign Embassies and Diplomatic Missions in India as well as in other parts of the world. The Complainant is the owner of the VFS GLOBAL trademark, which is registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Among numerous others, the Complainant is the owner of the Indian Trademark Registration No. 1555893, registered on November 24, 2008, for VFS GLOBAL, covering protection for various administration services to diplomatic mission, Embassies, consulates, airlines and other, including visa administration services (Annex 5 to the Complaint). In addition, the Complainant owns and operates its official website at "www.vfsglobal.com". The Respondent is reportedly located in Nigeria. The disputed domain name was registered on July 6, 2023. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, as evidenced in the Complaint, the disputed domain name has been used for sending out emails to third parties, pretending that these emails have been sent by or on behalf of the Complainant (Annexes 14A and 14B to the Complaint). 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 According to paragraphs 14 and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no substantive response has been submitted. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not substantively replied to the Complainant's contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. page 3 However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") section 4.3. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. 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 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in the VFS GLOBAL mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VFS GLOBAL mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here "visa" together with a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the VFS GLOBAL 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 such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. On the contrary and bearing in mind that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to approach customers of the Complainant, the Panel cannot exclude that the disputed domain name is used or will be used in connection with possibly fraudulent or illegitimate activities by the Respondent. Noting that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VFS GLOBAL trademark, which carries a risk of implied affiliation, the Panel has no doubt that the Respondent's intent is to impersonate the Complainant. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation) 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent's registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its VFS GLOBAL trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead third parties. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as already indicated before, the disputed domain name has apparently yet not been linked to an active website. However, as evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been already used by the Respondent to mislead customers, looking for the Complainant, in their false belief that any email sent from the disputed domain name origins from or is authorized by the Complainant, likely for fraudulent activities. In view of the Panel, this creates a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. 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 to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: September 29, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy