ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION IMC B.V. v. laoji wang Case No. D2023-4926 1. The Parties The Complainant is IMC B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the). The Respondent is laoji wang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2023. On November 27, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2024, 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 (Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy Protect, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 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 December 5, 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 December 6, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 15, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 2024. 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 is a company based in the Netherlands (Kingdom of the) and was founded as International Market makers Combination in 1989. It is internationally active in the field of providing financial services, particularly in offering trading solutions on the basis of data and algorithms. The Complainant employs over 950 people in various offices around the globe, such as in Amsterdam, Chicago, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Sydney. The Complainant is the owner of the IMC and IMC TRADING trademarks. Among other, the Complainant is the registered owner of the International Trademark Registrations No. 929842, registered on July 26, 2007, for IMC, and No. 1488678, registered on July 23, 2019, for IMC TRADING, both of them covering protection for mainly financial services as protected in class 36 (Annexes 5 and 6 to the Complaint). The Complainant further has its official website at “www.imc.com”. The Respondent is reportedly located in China. The disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2023. Screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in English language purportedly offering financial services, including virtual currency services. The associated website prominently featured the Complainant’s IMC trademark. The logo used on the website associated to the disputed domain name is a close copy of an institute’s logo from Australia (Annex 14 to the Complaint). At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website anymore. Prior to initiating the present administrative proceeding, the Complainants tried to solve the matter amicably by sending a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on November 8, 2023 (Annex 15 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:
page 3 (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. 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. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the IMC and IMC TRADING trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the IMC and IMC TRADING marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “app” 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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. Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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 available 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. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come
page 4 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. 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 IMC and IMC TRADING trademarks 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 Internet users. 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, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website by misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated website is operated or at least authorized by the Complainant, probably for scamming purposes. Particularly, the inherently misleading nature of the disputed domain name and the content of the associated website, including the prominent use of the Complainant’s IMC trademark, indicates the Respondent’s intention to freeride on the Complainant’s reputation in the financial services sector. Furthermore, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions as an additional indication for bad faith. The fact that the disputed domain name currently no longer resolves to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. All in all, the Panel believes that this is a typical cybersquatting case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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: February 1, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy